SO..... instead of asking for the world, try for something small that might have a chance of sticking, its better than nothing....The best thing we can hope for is that the changes that RCI agreed to make for 2 years can be made permanet.
Joe, I sincerely doubt that you have read and understood how little would change for the better if the proposed settlement is approved.
For starters, every person who owns a floating week would be royally "screwed."
If the lawsuit is settled as it stands now, RCI would be required to keep
"hands off" for 31 days of any deposit made more than a year in advance. Almost all "floating weeks" owners would be unable to get a week reserved and deposited by their resort more than a year in advance.
People who own fixed weeks would have to pay the maintenance fee a year in advance in order to be able to deposit more than a year in advance. (This is now the policy of almost every resort out there.)
Thereafter, RCI can remove each and every single week the minute it is deposited unless a member has an ongoing search for the week that has enough "trading power" to pull it. And guess who determines the trading power assigned to the searching week? Since RCI is accountable to no one for divulging what the mystery trading power value is, and how they arrived at the value, it seems like a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house.
Under the proposed settlement, RCI will be required to remove no more weeks (for rental purposes) than it deposits, and the week they put in is supposed to be equal in value to the week they take out--within 3 ranges: red, white, and blue. Well those of us who have been exchanging for years know that there are many shades of red, that there is strong suspicion of inflated values being given to certain resorts for suspect reasons, and even just RCI's history of plain error or incompetence in determining the correct trade power of a particular week.
If the week "swapped out" (or snatched, as I prefer to call it) is truly equal in value to the week RCI puts in the spacebank to replace it, then why doesn't RCI just keep their grubby week and rent it directly to the public and keep their greedy paws out of the spacebank tiii? Does anyone believe RCI's explanation that they do this to give their members a greater variety of inventory to choose from?????
It gets worse. The proposed settlement would require RCI to provide reports showing the raw number of "swaps" made without providing any details of the names of the resorts or weeks. There will be no way of knowing how many truly red weeks from highly desired resorts have been taken out for rental and replaced with a glut of red Orlando weeks.
And who receives the RCI reports? The plaintiffs' attorneys--the ones who know so little about the "fine points" of timesharing that they didn't even realize that the proposed settlement, if approved, deprives floating weeks owners of participating in any 31 day exclusivity period. This not only effects floating weeks owners, but also fixed weeks owners who will not have an opportunity to find and reserve these weeks before they are snatched the minute they come in.
How much do you think the Plaintiffs' attorneys will be paid to analyze the reports and check for compliance? NADA !!! So here's another fox guarding the hen house situation.We Objectors requested that a copy be sent to us.Surprise, surprise--RCI refused.
So, Joe, please let us know what part of the proposed settlement you think makes it worth accepting, rather than filing objections and hoping that the court system can force RCI to be more ethical and fair in the treatment of their members. We know they willl never do it voluntarily or for the right reasons but modern society muddles along without total chaos because many people with a defective moral/ethical value system are deterred by the fear of punishment by the legal justice system.