Mass Mailing To Worldmark Owners

KenK · Jul 12, 2006

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- · Jul 13, 2006

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- · Jul 13, 2006

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 · Jul 13, 2006

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 · Jul 13, 2006

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 · Jul 13, 2006

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- · Jul 13, 2006

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

SleepinIn · Jul 13, 2006

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 · Jul 13, 2006

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 · Jul 13, 2006

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 · Jul 13, 2006

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?

:clap:

SleepinIn · Jul 13, 2006

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 · Jul 13, 2006

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 · Jul 13, 2006

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- · Jul 13, 2006

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 · Jul 13, 2006

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 · Jul 13, 2006

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 · Jul 13, 2006

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- · Jul 13, 2006

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 · Jul 13, 2006

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

PA- · Jul 13, 2006

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 · Jul 14, 2006

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 · Jul 14, 2006

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 · Jul 14, 2006

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 · Jul 14, 2006

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.

Mass Mailing To Worldmark Owners

TUG Review Crew: ELITE