Round One Worldmark Owners

[cruisin]

There is hope for owners who want to take on the developers strangle hold on HOAs, hopefully this will prevail, and owners with concerns will be able to contact other owners as the law allows?

 

[BocaBum99]

Wow. That's great. This will surely be appealed. I wonder what tricks Wyndham will pull to try to stop this one?

 

[Cathyb]

So I am sure I understand, can someone put in easy language what transpired on this decision. Thanks

 

[richardm]

Wow.. That was a very interesting document.. Please keep us informed on what happens during the appeal.

 

[Sandy VDH]

So I am sure I understand, can someone put in easy language what transpired on this decision. Thanks

This has all come about because WM has the board stacked with Wyndham employees and the BOD is not doing things in the best interest to WM owners.

A worldmark member wanted to obtain a list of WM members and contact information as per the by laws of WM.

WM would not saying the list was a corporate assest and it would harm them if the list was made available. So they denied the request. They countered by saying they would provide mailing list to a 3rd party. Cost of mailing would be approximately $260,000 to reach all WM members.

Judge denied WM and let request prevail, saying that WM needed to provide said member with owner list and email address.

I think that is the jist of it.

 

[Amy]

Excellent! Thanks for the update.

 

[Pit]

Excellent news. Score one for owner's rights. Thanks for posting the news.

 

[Cathyb]

Sandy: Thank you for explaining!

 

[PerryM]

Dump Wyndham???

So how much is 260,000+ WM eMail address worth to resellers? 10¢ each would be $26,000, heck even 1¢ each is $2,600 for the list. Will the list be made free to the public so other WM owners can send their own eMails to WM owners and plug their own interests/products/services?

This will be fun to see how this list is controlled.

If the eMail addresses are released this is a very powerful tool for contacting WM owners. The question is how will Wyndham counteract those eMails? They might be forced into sending nightly eMails to all owners.

With Wyndham preoccupied with trying to survive the real estate tsunami can WM owners be convinced to:

• Replace the 5 WM BOD members with non Wyndham owners
• Dump the developer
• Completely rewrite the by-laws
• Hire a CEO and build our own management team to run 5,000+ condos
• Force competitive bidding for the management company job, or do it ourselves
• Find a construction company to build new resorts

Wow, I can see all the focused efforts of fighting Wyndham now focused on fighting fellow WM owners with different plans for the club.

Will it now be WM owner fighting WM owner - that's my guess.

A freebie eMail mailing program can easily shovel out 260k eMails overnight - dozens of WM owner groups plugging their own agenda each night?

Want to rent your WM credits - no problem - fire up that eMail program and send your list of credits to rent, or housekeeping tokens, or whatever - every night.

Count me in - I've got a well worn South Shore baseball cap I bought at the resort that I'd like to sell for $1. With these freebie programs I can send my cap offer to all 260k WM owners every night until I find a buyer. There is zero cost to me.

This will certainly be fun to watch…

The law of unintended consequences will prevail here folks. What may seem a victory will easily decay into something horrible. I predict that folks will look back at this event and mark it as a tipping point; just which way will WM tip is the question. The results could be breathtaking.

You heard it here first.

P.S.

I demand my own copy of the eMail addresses - I'm a WM owner and am entitled to them. Right? Who do I send an eMail to and get my list? If I can't get my copy how about a lawsuit by like minded owners against the folks hoarding the list?

I can't wait to present my ideas of hiring a CEO, management team, and 100+ WM employees to replace Wyndham. I'm hopeful that I can sell these and many more ideas to the owners.

Let the eMails begin....

 

[rhonda]

Wow, I can see all the focused efforts of fighting Wyndham now focused on fighting fellow WM owners with different plans for the club.

Will it now be WM owner fighting WM owner - that's my guess.

Sadly, I agree with Perry on this one. I don't see the ruling as a victory for owners.

 

[ecwinch]

Sadly, I agree with Perry on this one. I don't see the ruling as a victory for owners.

Wow! Really?

1) You have a developer controlled board that is taking specific steps to ensure that that they remain in power.
2) They have the ability to solicit proxies from owners at no cost (proxy solicitation is included in HOA mailings).
3) They vote those proxies to negate the votes of the general membership.
4) They in turn attempt to block access by other BOD candidates to membership lists to solicit support/proxies. Access that is granted in the by-laws.
5) Forced with a weak legal position, they offer to grant access on a cost prohibitive basis
6) And then they illegally modify the By-Laws to attempt to block access.

Effectively they have taken action to ensure that the HOA is NOT a representative organization of the members.

And as the BOD, they repeatedly make decisions on issues regarding their employer that they have inherent conflict of interest with.

How is this action not in our best interest. It puts on the path to a representative BOD. I will gladly put up with a few more spam e-mails, if it leads to a BOD that represents the interests of the membership, and is not beholden to the developer on multiple levels.

Without this step, the only way WM will have a representative BOD is when Wyndham decides they want us to have one.

 

[PerryM]

Wow! Really?

1) You have a developer controlled board that is taking specific steps to ensure that that they remain in power.
2) They have the ability to solicit proxies from owners at no cost (proxy solicitation is included in HOA mailings).
3) They vote those proxies to negate the votes of the general membership.
4) They in turn attempt to block access by other BOD candidates to membership lists to solicit support/proxies. Access that is granted in the by-laws.
5) Forced with a weak legal position, they offer to grant access on a cost prohibitive basis
6) And then they illegally modify the By-Laws to attempt to block access.

Effectively they have taken action to ensure that the HOA is NOT a representative organization of the members.

And as members the BOD, they repeatedly make decisions on issues regarding their employer that they have inherent conflict of interest with.

How is this action not in our best interest. It puts on the path to a representative BOD. I will gladly put up with a few more spam e-mails, if it leads to a BOD that represents the interests of the membership, and is not beholden to the developer on multiple levels.

Without this step, the only way WM will have a representative BOD is when Wyndham decides they want us to have one.

I can't speak for anyone but me - this will be a disaster for WM.

You watch the warring factions of WM owners go at each other with meat axes and the tranquil setting we have now will be wished for by many WM owners. We will long for the day of the heavy hand of Wyndham keeping order.

Haven't we seen similar scenarios like this over and over again?

I personally want WM completely independent of ANY developer and want a CEO who answers to the BOD, a management team, and hundreds of WM employees acting in WMs best interests.

But I can tell you that many owners want Wyndham to run our resorts and don't want ANY WM employees like I do.

There is but one knockdown battle I can name and I'm going to fight hard for my position.

There will be dozens of other positions all fighting for the vote of the WM owner.

These will not be polite, sit down type discussions, they will be bare knuckle slug fests that will take place on new web sites and via eMail to the owners.

Yes, the good old days of Wyndham will be looked at with fond memories.

All because some bleeding hearts had to make the eMail addresses of 260k WM owners public knowledge.

But heck, I play by the rules.

 

[bnoble]

Is the list email or snail mail?

If the latter, then perhaps the damage won't be quite so spectacular.

Edit: never mind, I read it myself. Both.

 

[ecwinch]

We will long for the day of the heavy hand of Wyndham keeping order.

They said the same thing in East Germany and Russia during the fall of communism.

Having a "heavy hand" that manipulates the trust in order to have a class system to promotes their business interests does not sit well with me.

For instance, why should the trust/BOD care how the owners obtained their membership. The trust/BOD does not benefit from the sale of developer points. In the current system we have two classes of owners - those with developer purchased weeks and those with resale weeks. Increasingly Wyndham is modifying the rules of the trust to marginalize those members who purchased resale. Why should the BOD care how the members came to join the trust. They should not. They should be focused on stewardship of the existing resorts and the membership they serve. They should not rubber stamp programs that promote the developers interest and reduces the rights of a portion of their membership.

But since Wyndham has a vested interest in selling weeks, they implement practices to grant greater rights to those purchasing developer weeks. In a more balanced system, the BOD would not allow these practices to occur.

I personally want WM completely independent of ANY developer and want a CEO who answers to the BOD, a management team, and hundreds of WM employees acting in WMs best interests.

And how do you propose we get to this point, without steps like these? It is not a level playing field. Wyndham is not going to voluntarily cede control and face an uncertain future where they cannot rely on the BOD to support initiatives that assist their sales efforts.

 

[PerryM]

Katy bar the door....

I like things Black and White and hate Gray; I'm an engineer.

In past WM elections the candidates I saw were not hard core, peddle to the metal, capitalists but amateurs who were hell bent on saving us from big bad Wyndham. I voted for the Wyndham candidates since they had a vested interest in making money for Wyndham and I felt they understood business. The amateurs were just going to screw up things.

Well, with total free access to all 260k+ WM owners that changes the game plan. We can dump the developer and create WM the Company.

For 25+ years WM has been run like an overgrown timeshare resort; as of this second NOT ONE EMPLOYEE works for WM. WM has 5,000+ condos worth about $1.5 B and an annual operating budgets of almost $200 M. We need to grow up and get a CEO and hire our own management team and employees who answer to the owners of WM; in the process change the By-Laws and kick the developer out.

There are WM owners hell bent against hiring one employee – this is lunacy to me and I’m going to do my best to convince 260K WM owners to stop listening to those nuts.

But there are other folks who have entirely different plans to both plans – wars will erupt and I dare say those 5 WM BOD members might stay in power while we duke it out.

So all of this is in store for WM owners as soon as that eMail list is made public – count on me pushing my agenda to the owners. Count on others doing the same.

I have a whole list of things I’ve wanted to say to the WM owners for 5 years now and had to do it slugging it out in chat rooms; Katy bar the door…

 

[cruisin]

Sadly, I agree with Perry on this one. I don't see the ruling as a victory for owners.

Wouldn't it be something to have a Board of Directors that fought as hard for the owners as our Board of directors fights for Wyndham. One can only dream....

 

[Steve]

What if Perry posted something extreme on TUG...and no one responded?

I like things Black and White and hate Gray

Actually, I think you like things extreme and provocative. It's been interesting to see your evolution over the past couple of years. You've gone from being an unrealistic optimist who touted the virtues of developer purchases of Westgate (best timeshare in the whole world!), etc...to now being a Chicken Little "the sky is falling" pessimist. Quite a transformation.

What I think you really like is attention...and controversy. I believe you like to see yourself as the puppeteer. The members of TUG...or WorldMark...or whatever group you are trying to influence...are the puppets. You say something extreme to get people excited. Then you sit back laughing as you pull the strings to try and get the reactions you want.

Of course, it goes haywire sometimes and you end up getting scorn instead of adoration. But you have your fans, and it's interesting how often people respond to whatever you post.

Steve

 

[timeos2]

There is nothing in the ruling that says the list must be PROVIDED but that an owner, or his representative, can SEE it and copy if they wish. 260,000 emails? Who is going to copy THAT? It's a good ruling but doesn't open any floodgates IMO. it does start to establish some real owners rights (Yeah!) so thats a good start and may get Wyndham/Worldmark nervous (and they should be). The good old boys opeartions should have ended years ago with real owners taking over.

 

[rhonda]

Wow! Really? <snip ...>

Eric,

I am, right now, watching a similar story play out at my favorite resort. Current time is Saturday, 11:30a ... and I'm attending an Owner's Forum in the Lodge rather than getting my haircut (had that scheduled), horseback riding (had that scheduled, too) or soaking in the hot springs (no schedule required). The purpose of this meeting is to discuss details of two offers from outside parties to purchase the resort in entirety.

About 3 years ago certain owners petitioned and gained access to the membership list for mailing. There were restrictions on that access similar to the wording in the decision linked above restricting commercial interests, etc. However, the list was misused ... personal interests expressed ... owner confusion spun up ... (fees paid for the misuse) ... leading to, in my observation, an exhausted BOD, increases in legal costs, increases in ownership fees, and a thoroughly exasperated membership.

In any community, there are an amazing number of personal agendas. Some of these intentions are for the group's good ... but there are also, likely, a few wolves hiding in sheep's clothing until the right moment. Access to inexpensive communication opens Pandora's box. From what I've experienced in these few short years -- even the best personalities and purposes have a limited threshold for attacks. The communications that may follow aren't simply a few extra spam email messages -- it could become an ugly and costly battle.

 

[RichM]

There is nothing in the ruling that says the list must be PROVIDED but that an owner, or his representative, can SEE it and copy if they wish. 260,000 emails? Who is going to copy THAT? It's a good ruling but doesn't open any floodgates IMO. it does start to establish some real owners rights (Yeah!) so thats a good start and may get Wyndham/Worldmark nervous (and they should be). The good old boys opeartions should have ended years ago with real owners taking over.

The bylaws are being upheld by the ruling and the bylaws DO state copying is allowed:

7: RECORDS AND REPORTS
7.1 Inspections.
7.1(a) Members. The Articles, Bylaws, Declaration,
Rules, Membership register (including mailing addresses and
telephone numbers) or duplicate Membership register, the books of
account and minutes of proceedings of the Members, the Board and
any committees, and all other records of the Program maintained by
the Club or its Manager, shall be made available for inspection and
copying, upon written demand and reasonable notice, by any Member
or his duly appointed representative, at any reasonable time and
for a purpose reasonably related to his interests as a Member. The
Club may restrict the use of information from the Membership
register by requiring Members to sign a written agreement not to
use or allow use of Membership information for commercial or other
purposes not reasonably related to the affairs of the Club. An
original or copy of the Articles and Bylaws, as amended to date,
shall be kept at the principal office of the Club and shall be open
to inspection by the Members at all reasonable times during office
hours. The records shall be made available for inspection at the
office where the records are maintained. Upon receipt of an
authenticated written request from a Member along with the fee
prescribed by the Board to defray the costs of reproduction, the
Manager or other custodian of records shall prepare and transmit to
the Member a copy of any and all records requested.

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -

- www.wmowners.com

 

[PerryM]

buy the letter...

7: RECORDS AND REPORTS
7.1 Inspections.
7.1(a) Members. The Articles, Bylaws, Declaration,
Rules, Membership register (including mailing addresses and
telephone numbers) or duplicate Membership register, the books of
account and minutes of proceedings of the Members, the Board and
any committees, and all other records of the Program maintained by
the Club or its Manager, shall be made available for inspection and
copying, upon written demand and reasonable notice, by any Member
or his duly appointed representative, at any reasonable time and
for a purpose reasonably related to his interests as a Member. The
Club may restrict the use of information from the Membership
register by requiring Members to sign a written agreement not to
use or allow use of Membership information for commercial or other
purposes not reasonably related to the affairs of the Club. An
original or copy of the Articles and Bylaws, as amended to date,
shall be kept at the principal office of the Club and shall be open
to inspection by the Members at all reasonable times during office
hours. The records shall be made available for inspection at the
office where the records are maintained. Upon receipt of an
authenticated written request from a Member along with the fee
prescribed by the Board to defray the costs of reproduction, the
Manager or other custodian of records shall prepare and transmit to
the Member a copy of any and all records requested.

There are 260,000+ WM owners – If I were Wyndham/WM I’d follow the bylaws to the letter.

Simply print each WM owner’s name, address, and eMail on a separate sheet of paper and make the WM owner come in and sign each sheet. You know, a thousand words stating the owner won't let the document out of their sight and heavy penalties to those owners who lose control of the documents; this would be underneath the data on each page.

Then a notary republic might be needed to verify the person signing is who they say they are - that would be a $3 - $5 charge per page. There are notaries in the lawyer's office. Who knows, maybe the law office offers quantity discounts and $500,000 in notary fees would be a bargain.

A ream of paper has 500 sheets which would mean 520 reams of paper. Each ream is about 2” high or the stack would be 1,040” high or 86.7 feet tall.

Of course the documents will be at the lawyer’s office and they will charge a fee to make copies. At 50 cents each that’s $130,000 plus 260,000 signatures.

Each ream weighs 5 pounds 1 oz so the total would weigh 2,600 pounds. A mid sized U-hall truck should do the job.

I’d bet the court would have no problems with that. It's called a document dump and its done all the time. The lawyers and courts are used to it - no big deal.

Of course I'd hope for the list could be moved to my cell-phone - it has a 8 GB micro SD card that would easily hold all of the data.

But I know better....

(Off to a business trip - back middle of next week)

P.S.
As I am running out the door this morning it occurred to me that the court isn't going to get into the order the names will be released. Wonder if Wyndham will release them in this order:

1. WM owners without an eMail address
2. WN owners whose eMail address keeps bouncing back as bad
3. WM owners delinquent in their MFs
4. WM owners who don't use their accounts much
5. WM owners who have loyally voted for Wyndham in past elections
6. WM owners who have been with WM for 10+ years
7. WM owners living outside the USA
8. Finally everyon else and they will get an eMail warning them of spoof eMails from unknown folks (and give sample topics)...

Nah...this is a clear cut victory for those lawyers who charged big bucks to get this list.

 

[ecwinch]

Eric,

Access to inexpensive communication opens Pandora's box.

Are you kidding me? That is almost like saying the freedom of speech opens a Pandora's box.

I am, right now, watching a similar story play out at my favorite resort.

Sorrry - which of the resorts you own are you referrring to?

Current time is Saturday, 11:30a ... and I'm attending an Owner's Forum in the Lodge rather than getting my haircut (had that scheduled), horseback riding (had that scheduled, too) or soaking in the hot springs (no schedule required).

So I am assuming that you are doing so to protect your equity investment in that resort. That is the responsibility of ownership. If you do not want to accept that responsibility then you can just accept the decisions that are made for you - i.e. not question the mf you are charged each year and go do these things....

 

[rhonda]

So I am assuming that you are doing so to protect your equity investment in that resort. That is the responsibility of ownership. If you do not want to accept that responsibility then you can just accept the decisions that are made for you - i.e. not question the mf you are charged each year and go do these things....

Two different things altogether. Regular meetings and company business are one thing. The difficulties raised by the special interests are another. There is much truth in the old saying, "One bad apple spoils the barrel."

 

[ecwinch]

7: RECORDS AND REPORTS
There are 260,000+ WM owners – If I were Wyndham/WM I’d follow the bylaws to the letter.

Simply print each WM owner’s name, address, and eMail on a separate sheet of paper and make the WM owner come in and sign each sheet. You know, a thousand words stating the owner won't let the document out of their sight and heavy penalties to those owners who lose control of the documents; this would be underneath the data on each page.

Then a notary republic might be needed to verify the person signing is who they say they are - that would be a $3 - $5 charge per page. There are notaries in the lawyer's office. Who knows, maybe the law office offers quantity discounts and $500,000 in notary fees would be a bargain.

This would be a great legal strategy.

Put yourself in the position of the judge on this case. It's basically your standard David vs Goliath case. Members are sueing for a right allowed by the membership by-laws. Wyndmam blocks their request, on the technicality that the by-laws do not cover e-mail addresses. Based on Wyndhams weak position, they devise a "alternative solution" of compliance that costs the requestor $260k. Then after the case has been filed, they violate your by-laws by unilaterally passing a policy that violates the by-laws without obtaining a quorem on the issue and with questionable notification.


One of the key elements of the judges ruling is that BOD proposed policy for meeting the requirements of your by-laws is illegal (i.e.

"The alternative proposed by WorldMark is a violation of its By Laws, without a proper membership vote. Such an attempt to violate the By Laws by the Board is void, as in excess of the Board's grant of authority under the WorldMark By Laws."

So you are going to suggest another alternative solution, one that makes it more costly for the members to exercise the rights they have under the bylaws. That sounds a sound strategy. I wonder how the judge will respond to that.

 

[Steve]

Eric,

I am, right now, watching a similar story play out at my favorite resort. Current time is Saturday, 11:30a ... and I'm attending an Owner's Forum in the Lodge rather than getting my haircut (had that scheduled), horseback riding (had that scheduled, too) or soaking in the hot springs (no schedule required). The purpose of this meeting is to discuss details of two offers from outside parties to purchase the resort in entirety.

About 3 years ago certain owners petitioned and gained access to the membership list for mailing. There were restrictions on that access similar to the wording in the decision linked above restricting commercial interests, etc. However, the list was misused ... personal interests expressed ... owner confusion spun up ... (fees paid for the misuse) ... leading to, in my observation, an exhausted BOD, increases in legal costs, increases in ownership fees, and a thoroughly exasperated membership.

In any community, there are an amazing number of personal agendas. Some of these intentions are for the group's good ... but there are also, likely, a few wolves hiding in sheep's clothing until the right moment. Access to inexpensive communication opens Pandora's box. From what I've experienced in these few short years -- even the best personalities and purposes have a limited threshold for attacks. The communications that may follow aren't simply a few extra spam email messages -- it could become an ugly and costly battle.

Rhonda,

The resort I guess you are referring to is Warner Springs Ranch. It's unfortunate what is happening there, but it seems hard to justify keeping the WorldMark owner list private based on that isolated case.

As you are a former member of the WorldMark board, you are in a somewhat unique position as you know better than any of us how things really operate. It seems like the board isn't looking out for the best interests of the members in a number of areas. Do you really feel it best that Wyndham prohibit access to the membership list? I'd be genuinely interested in your views on this with the background and experience that you have.

Sincerely,

Steve