• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

WorldMark Who to vote for, and why?

Tokapeba

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Messages
288
Reaction score
40
Points
388
Location
SF Bay Area
Resorts Owned
Marriott Mountainside, Worldmark, Ridge Tahoe
I want to vote an owner onto the WorldMark board, who has the best chance? I know a little, but havn't been following for a couple months. I just received my ballot in the mail today and I don't have a lot of time to do research.

Any help would be greatly appriceated.

Andy.
 

SleepinIn

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Andy,

If you have no idea, I can certainly give you one. I know there are others who read here who hate the person I'm going to mention, but I'm going to anyway and I'll tell you why.

My strongest suggestion is that you assign your proxy to Philip Abdouch. You'll see him on the ballot as a candidate.

You may or may not be aware, but Wyndham has done the following in the last 1.5 years, allowed without a whimper from our BoD:

  • Increased credit allocation for all new resorts, from 30% higher to almost 100% higher. You can check out the credits required to stay at the Las Vegas Tropicana, West Yellowstone, and San Diego resorts.
  • Rent units to the public.
  • "Party Weekends" where Wyndham books units to accommodate up to 52 people during the summer and other peak times at resorts we can't get into with our credits. let alone bonus time. This is a program for sales. Owners are required to bring a non-owner couple and they are required to attend a sales presentation.
  • Give non-owners using the "Experience" program of purchasing non-renewable credits to "try out" being an owner, higher priority on booking popular coastal resorts during holiday and summer periods.
  • Speaking of bonus time (it's not a "bonus," it's a right in the contract) you may have noticed how much harder it's getting to book bonus time. All new resorts and even new units at existing resorts (St. George, Bear Lake, even Galena) are now having 50 weeks per year sold instead of the 48 that was customary for "drive-to" locations. This means that instead of setting aside 1 week for maintenance and 3 weeks for bonus time, they're setting aside 1 week for bonus time.
  • Have you seen the increase in housekeeping fees? The fees for most unit types rose more than 30%, with the cost for a 3-bdrm unit going from $ 55 to $ 75, or more than 36%.
  • They have also introduced a new program called TravelShare. This program allows new owners with accounts as small as 6,000 credits to book units for cash from 21 to 42 days before check-in. The current cost is 6 cents per credit, or 1.6 cents higher than the current bonus time fees. This is a tiered program and excludes the existing owner base unless they wish to buy at least 5,000 more credits from Wyndham.
Philip is a true independent who would not sit idly by and watch Wyndham destroy our club. He may not be able to change the world, but I believe he can make a difference.

Some will say that he's abrasive. Well, most would be when the current BoD (who primarily work for Wyndham, as do Peggy Fry and Dave Herrick, or used to work for them or parent company Cendant, Gene Hensley and John Henley) allows Wyndham to pillage the club and steal our value.

Dave Herrick (I guess when wearing his "Wyndham hat") tells us that the developer alone sets credit allocation for new resorts. The governing documents say: "Such allocation shall be based on the relative use-value of the new Resort compared to existing Resorts, in Declarant's reasonable discretion." Is it reasonable to believe that the new Las Vegas Tropicana resort should cost 13,000 to 15,000 credits for a 2-bdrm for a week when Las Vegas Spencer Street costs 10,000? Both are converted apartment complexes, near, but not on the strip. The units at Spencer Street are larger than even the 2-bdrm deluxe units at Tropicana.

It's time that the owners elect a director that will actually think for himself and has spine enough to stand up to the rest of the BoD.

I have no ax to grind, nothing to gain by supporting Philip and his proxy drive other than to save our club. And it has come to that, saving it or watching the former Cendant, now Wyndham rape and pillage till there's nothing left. They'll cut and run the minute it suits them.

If you don't want to "assign your proxy" to Philip, then please vote for him directly.

For more information on these and other issues, as well as learning how to make the absolute best of your ownership, go to www.wmowners.com.
 
Last edited:

mtribe

newbie
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
http://www.marci4worldmark.com
I also am giving my proxy to Phillip. I have carefully read each of the candidates statements in destinations. Phillip is not the most antagonistic of the entire pool of candidates but is strong enough to stand up to the existing board. It is inconceivable to me that our board is so thoroughly tied up in a conflict of interest that the actually do not have a conflict of interest. There is only one interest and that is profits for Wyndham. There is so little concern for Worldmark the Club and its existing owners that there may as well not even be a separate legal entity.

At a minimum read the candidates statements in Destination magazine and also any additional links or references that they mention to learn some of the basics. I believe you will find that Phillip has a good grasp of the situation. The list above is a good beginning of recent problems but this is only the tip of the iceberg. We need a course correction because I love my WM and do not want to see it sink.
 

cotraveller

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
1,175
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Denver
I will not be giving my proxy to anyone. I will choose who to vote for myself, and which issues to vote for or against.

There is no question that some of the new resorts have higher credit allocations than the older ones. Las Vegas, Spencer Street, an example quoted earlier in this thread, requires 8,000 credits for a 1 bedroom unit per week. By comparison, two of the urban resorts, San Francisco and Seattle, require 12,000 credits for a 1 bedroom unit in red season. There was not much fuss when those two resorts came on line at a 50% increase over some of the older resorts. It was accepted as a necessity for having the urban locations. San Diego came on line requiring 15,000 credits for a 1 bedroom unit and some people got all up in arms over the 25% increase over the other two urban resorts.

Based on the bookings at San Diego, the majority of the owners apparently do not seem to be bothered by the higher values. I have been tracking the San Diego resort booking pattern for some time now. Near the end of last February, the 1 bedroom units were booked fairly solid through April and the Studio units were well booked through the end of March. That is far beyond the 14 day bonus time booking window, which means those units were being booked with credits. In mid May, the 1 bedroom units were booked almost solid through the end of August and the studios were also well booked into the middle of August. That pattern continued through the summer.

The San Diego resort has developed its own unique booking pattern, much as the Las Vegas resorts have. In the case of San Diego, the 1 bedroom units fill 2 to 3 months in advance and the studios fill at 1 to 2 months. That pattern is evident if you look at the availability today. The 1 bedroom units are well booked through Thanksgiving. The studios show more spotty booking, with the weekends gone through mid October and the weekdays filling slowly. Even with the higher credit requirements, the resort has been well accepted by WorldMark owners and is being well utilized using credit bookings. It is not presenting a drain on the system as some would suggest. If there is any problem with San Diego is it that there are not enough 1 bedroom units and too many studios.

Some of the candidates and their supporters would have the board reject a new resort by refusing to sign the Declaration for that resort if they felt credit values assigned were too high. However, the Vacation Program Agreement, which is the top level governing document, states in Section 3.1(u) that WorldMark “<i>. . . hereby agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program or a Declaration of Annexation imposing upon all of the property in the Club (including, but not limited to any additional Units purchased by Declarant and conveyed to Club). . .</i>”. There are no “if they like the resort” or other exceptions to that clause in the document. If WorldMark were to refuse to sign the Declaration for a new resort they would be in violation of the Vacation Program Agreement. I do not believe that any course of action that would potentially lead to court proceedings is in the best interest of the club or the owners.
 
Last edited:

PerryM

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
2
Points
36
I'm voting for the incumbants....

I’m with Fred on this one – I’m voting for the incumbents and others that I believe can coexist with the developer Wyndham.

My problem with the folks running for the BOD is that they are headed down the wrong path – the half-ass approach and will simply gum things up horribly with the best of intentions.

WorldMark is a Billion dollar organization with 5,000 condos around the world and not ONE EMPLOYEE!!! Yes folks, we don’t have a CEO of WorldMark, we don’t have Vice Presidents to manage a hundred employees who are loyal to us WM owners – we don’t even have a janitor to sweep the floor. We ain’t got anyone who has any loyalty to us. Yet we collect annual MFs of about $180 M!

All I see are fellow WM owners who want to infuse their belief system upon 250,000 WM owners – I don’t like this one bit. I want employees who think 24/7 about our needs and wants as WM owners and who will go up against the developer on our behalf.

I don’t see candidates dedicated to fixing this insane situation so why vote for anyone who can’t see the picture better than the opposition – the developer? I’m hoping the developer leaves the 20 year old rules alone, versus many WM owners who want them changed to suit their belief system.

There is no doubt many things can be improved but WM employees should be doing this and not folks who meet once a quarter and who’s greatest challenge will be “Chicken or beef for lunch?”.
 

SleepinIn

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Ah, and so we have now heard from one of those individuals whom I earlier mentioned.

First the Vacation Program Agreement is not the top level governing document. The Articles of Incorporation, followed by the Bylaws are, in fact, the overarching documents.

The post from cotraveller quotes section 3.1 from the Vacation Program Agreement but failed to quote the following: 3.1 Declaration. Club, as the legal owner or ultimate lessee of the Property in the Program and subject to the provisions of Section 8 of the Declaration, hereby agrees . . .

This “Section 8 of the Declaration” refers to the Declaration of Vacation Owner Program, which states:

8 : ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY. The Property may be enlarged to include an unlimited number of Units, although neither declarant nor Club is obligated to develop or annex any additional Property.

That's some pretty clear language. It is utterly ridiculous to think that WorldMark, or any entity or individual could be forced to accept property without consent.

To provide some “food for thought,” I’m quoting a former WM BoD candidate:

As an engineer... I am trained to look at things "in the limit"... which often helps shed light on the situation.

Let's assume that the WM BOD was faced with the following situation:

WYN builds a new resort which consists of putting a single mobile home in a field someplace. They assign the credit value of 1 billion credits per night. Despite any complaints by the WM BOD.... WYN stands firm that they alone get to assign credit values and their decision is firm.

Would WM, as directed by the BOD, agree to accept this new resort into our inventory?

If the answer is Yes: That raises the question if they are fulfilling their legal responsibilities of representing the owners

If the answer is NO: That raises the question of why aren't they stopping the exact same behavior (to a lesser degree) now.

/Jim​

Can you imagine that if I owned real estate that had has a gas station on it with tanks that leaked and was facing a huge clean-up bill, I could simply deed that property over to you without your consent where you, not I would face the liability?

If, in fact, our governing documents were to allow such a travesty, there are laws on the books which would cover such things as being unconscionable, or would find “lack of consideration.”

In addition to the opinions stated above, Gene Hensley, President of the WM BoD and currently up for re-election has publicly stated that the BoD rejected some possible resorts.
 

SleepinIn

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Oh, and good ol’ Perry. Yes, you vote for the current BoD as it sells us down the river. You certainly don’t care about the other 250,000 owners. You’ve said often enough that you love to work the system to your benefit. You’ve also said that you’ll sell this “asset” when it no longer suits your needs. Well, you see, for most of us, our needs are to get great vacations, not making enough money on WM so as to have our airfare and other vacation expenses covered. Most of us wish to keep our ownership for the long haul.

(Be careful who you side with Perry. They might even be the very person who was so worried about you renting out the WM units for income. Think about it.)
 

mtribe

newbie
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
http://www.marci4worldmark.com
Some of the candidates and their supporters would have the board reject a new resort by refusing to sign the Declaration for that resort if they felt credit values assigned were too high. However, the Vacation Program Agreement, which is the top level governing document, states in Section 3.1(u) that WorldMark “<i>. . . hereby agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program or a Declaration of Annexation imposing upon all of the property in the Club (including, but not limited to any additional Units purchased by Declarant and conveyed to Club). . .</i>”. There are no “if they like the resort” or other exceptions to that clause in the document. If WorldMark were to refuse to sign the Declaration for a new resort they would be in violation of the Vacation Program Agreement. I do not believe that any course of action that would potentially lead to court proceedings is in the best interest of the club or the owners.

Fred that is a huge exaggeration and you know it. There are years of development involved in the development of a new resort. The developer and the BOD are supposed to be working together in ADVANCE. They are obviously working together because they are the same people. In a healthy situation this is when the board should be REPRESENTING OWNERS saying you may build what ever resort you like so long as you meet the requirements laid out in the governing documents concerning relative use. As the Worldmark BOD we do not care what you (WVO) have to charge for new credits but you must meet the relative use requirement. How can we work together to find opportunities to work together for the mutual good. New resorts for us and reasonable profits for you. It would be equally unethical for us to refuse a resort that had been agreed upon. The problem is that the fox is guarding the hen house. 4 of 5 current BOD members are current of former TW/WVO employees. How can they not have a conflict of interest. How can they possibly meet the legal fiduciary responsibilities that they have to both organizations they serve at the same time?

Mike
 

PerryM

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Oh, and good ol’ Perry. Yes, you vote for the current BoD as it sells us down the river. You certainly don’t care about the other 250,000 owners. You’ve said often enough that you love to work the system to your benefit. You’ve also said that you’ll sell this “asset” when it no longer suits your needs. Well, you see, for most of us, our needs are to get great vacations, not making enough money on WM so as to have our airfare and other vacation expenses covered. Most of us wish to keep our ownership for the long haul.

(Be careful who you side with Perry. They might even be the very person who was so worried about you renting out the WM units for income. Think about it.)

I want WM in the hands of WM employees and not for rent as the current crop of candidates seems to want. That's my objection to all of them.

I want steadfast rules that I can learn and use to my benefit. Vacillating rules favor the developer since they are the ones promoting these things.

So each WM owner will have to ask themselves who do they trust more to NOT cause rules to be modified - the developer who has stock holders and employees to answer to or WM owners who may or may not be able to attend a meeting to decide on things they really don't have control over anyway.

Show me a candidate that wants a WM management team and one that wants to take 90% of the power from the developer and give it to the WM employees and you will find me supporting this guy.

To summarize:
I don't want a half assed approach - I want candidates that will demand WM employees. Until then, I'll stick with the developer - he has motives that I understand and can take advantage of.

P.S.
You will find all kinds of tips renting timeshares on this site - rent is not a 4 letter word here guys.

This is exactly the mind set that seems to want to force change among 250,000 WM owners that might see things a bit differently.

To all of you WM owners who do want the ability to rent your timeshare to pay for MFs or airline tickets the developer has no objection for you doing this. However, don't count on the current crop of candidates to enforce your right to rent. In fact I'd be very worried.
 
Last edited:

SleepinIn

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Points
1
I didn't say I had a problem with you renting, but I did say somebody else does. Just take a look around.
 

PerryM

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Don't we hear the same promises every 2 years?

Fred that is a huge exaggeration and you know it. There are years of development involved in the development of a new resort. The developer and the BOD are supposed to be working together in ADVANCE. They are obviously working together because they are the same people. In a healthy situation this is when the board should be REPRESENTING OWNERS saying you may build what ever resort you like so long as you meet the requirements laid out in the governing documents concerning relative use. As the Worldmark BOD we do not care what you (WVO) have to charge for new credits but you must meet the relative use requirement. How can we work together to find opportunities to work together for the mutual good. New resorts for us and reasonable profits for you. It would be equally unethical for us to refuse a resort that had been agreed upon. The problem is that the fox is guarding the hen house. 4 of 5 current BOD members are current of former TW/WVO employees. How can they not have a conflict of interest. How can they possibly meet the legal fiduciary responsibilities that they have to both organizations they serve at the same time?

Mike


As much as I’d like a perfect world only Walgreens seems to be able to deliver that dream.

Forget relative use and a hand holding relationship with owners. Everyone thinks that by placing WM owners on the WM BOD the problems of a Billion dollar company will magically correct themselves.

Until I see WM employees doing this we are just making wishes that will never be fulfilled.

Come on folks – haven’t we seen enough politicians promise the moon and when you elect them they turn out to be worthless. They are rookies and have no power and nothing happens. I’ll stick with the status quo until I see some candidates who actually understand that they are not the solution but WM employees are.

Until then I'm going to assume that rookie WM owners are just going to screw up things that I understand and use.
 
Last edited:

itchyfeet

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
759
Reaction score
31
Points
238
Location
Sacramento, CA
I'm with SleepinIn who gave an excellent recap of what has happened to the club since Wyndham took over. Since I became a WM member about four years ago, I've seen weekend bonus time and inventory specials for Angels Camp & Windsor all but disappear. This has happened since Wyndham has decided to bleed every dollar they can with party weekends, rentals, and other sales promotions they've dreamed up that take time away from existing members. I'm for an INDEPENDENT Board of Directors that will protect the rights of the members.
 

itchyfeet

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
759
Reaction score
31
Points
238
Location
Sacramento, CA
Perry please explain what you mean by this:

Until then I'm going to assume that rookie WM owners are just going to screw up things that I understand and use.
 

PerryM

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Who wants a useful idiot?

I'm with SleepinIn who gave an excellent recap of what has happened to the club since Wyndham took over. Since I became a WM member about four years ago, I've seen weekend bonus time and inventory specials for Angels Camp & Windsor all but disappear. This has happened since Wyndham has decided to bleed every dollar they can with party weekends, rentals, and other sales promotions they've dreamed up that take time away from existing members. I'm for an INDEPENDENT Board of Directors that will protect the rights of the members.

Perry please explain what you mean by this:

Until then I'm going to assume that rookie WM owners are just going to screw up things that I understand and use.

First, I don't need to explain anything to you, but will do so out of curtsey.

Let's assume that PA gets on the WM BOD and the other 4 folks are Wyndham (WN) cronies.

Now what?

PA will be outvoted all the time. The BOD can be called to an emergency meeting in Washington (the state) and what will PA do? I think he lives in Texas.

I'd like someone to explain just how a WM owner fights these guys. I don't want a candidate to answer this since not all may. Just how is that WM owner going to act on our behalf?

I sure can't think of a way but by a war.

To me the WM owner is going to be reduced to picking fights and if one of those has a round about way for the developer to extend their influence they will use him.

There is a term for such a person - a useful idiot. (This is not a personal attack on any candidate but I'm explaining what I'm thinking, just as you requested).


I don't want such a person flailing around allowing WN to further its policies.

I want a candidate who is not so full of himself that thinks he is the solution - I want WM employees working for me, the WM owner and not the developer.
 

ladycody

TUG Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
527
Reaction score
8
Points
378
Location
Hermiston, Oregon
The following is not an opinion on anything other than my view of the quote below.

However, the Vacation Program Agreement, which is the top level governing document, states in Section 3.1(u) that WorldMark "<i>. . . hereby agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program or a Declaration of Annexation imposing upon all of the property in the Club (including, but not limited to any additional Units purchased by Declarant and conveyed to Club). . .</i>". There are no "if they like the resort" or other exceptions to that clause in the document. If WorldMark were to refuse to sign the Declaration for a new resort they would be in violation of the Vacation Program Agreement.

The complete text is not showing and it changes considerably when presented in its entirety.

Section 3.1(u) that WorldMark "Club. . hereby agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program or a Declaration of Annexation imposing upon all of the property in the Club (including, but not limited to any additional Units purchased by Declarant and conveyed to Club) the mutual and beneficial restrictions, convenants, and conditions of the program. . ."

All this is saying is that the Club agrees to impose the program and it's restrictions, covenants, and conditions on any property in the Club and any conveyed in the future. In NO way does this clause appear obligate the club to annex (add) a property...only that the club must agree to impose the conditions of the declaration/program on those that are.

You present this clause as though it demands acceptance of new resorts...when in fact, all it demands is that those resorts that are brought into the club be subjected to the declaration and its terms.

The top quoted clause has nothing to do with annexation of properties. There is, in fact, a section dedicated to just that which was quoted by someone else.
 

PerryM

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
2
Points
36
I'm for dirty water, foul air, and developer controlled BODs

The following is not an opinion on anything other than my view of the quote below.



The complete text is not showing and it changes considerably when presented in its entirety.

Section 3.1(u) that WorldMark "Club. . hereby agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program or a Declaration of Annexation imposing upon all of the property in the Club (including, but not limited to any additional Units purchased by Declarant and conveyed to Club) the mutual and beneficial restrictions, convenants, and conditions of the program. . ."

All this is saying is that the Club agrees to impose the program and it's restrictions, covenants, and conditions on any property in the Club and any conveyed in the future. In NO way does this clause appear obligate the club to annex (add) a property...only that the club must agree to impose the conditions of the declaration/program on those that are.

You present this clause as though it demands acceptance of new resorts...when in fact, all it demands is that those resorts that are brought into the club be subjected to the declaration and its terms.

The top quoted clause has nothing to do with annexation of properties. There is, in fact, a section dedicated to just that which was quoted by someone else.


This is a great example of WM employees duking it out with the developer. That WM CEO who would represent us would have lawyers at his disposal to enforce the rules. Right now a WM owner on the BOD is whistling Dixie.

WM has 60+ resorts world wide and if we had just 5 employees each that's 300 employees that work for US and NOT the developer. Throw in 100 employees at the HQ then we would have 400+ employees who do NOT answer to the developer but to the CEO who works with the WM BOD.

This is how it's supposed to be done for a $1 B organization. Candidates who don't think this way are irrelevant to me.


Bumper stickers like "I'm for an independent BOD" are cute and who can argue with this. The real sticker should be "I want 400 WM employees"!
 

Fern Modena

TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
4,660
Reaction score
4
Points
36
Location
Southern Nevada
How about teleconferencing? Summer Bay used to use often as a means of having board meetings with members who were in at least four states and two countries.

Fern

First, I don't need to explain anything to you, but will do so out of curtsey.

Let's assume that PA gets on the WM BOD and the other 4 folks are Wyndham (WN) cronies.

Now what?

PA will be outvoted all the time. The BOD can be called to an emergency meeting in Washington (the state) and what will PA do? I think he lives in Texas.
 

PerryM

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
2
Points
36
How about teleconferencing? Summer Bay used to use often as a means of having board meetings with members who were in at least four states and two countries.

Fern


Oh, I agree that technology solves the problem.

However, if this a political battle logic may not be used.

If it isn't that it might be eMails that get lumped into the bulk mail folder by the sender using an address of a spammer. Or the phone calls that never seem to make it. Or the notice sent by mail and the action is needed in 2 days. etc. It's political war and the opponent need not play fair.

Hell, I can assure everyone that they won't play fair. Wyndham has billions on the line here they are not about to listen to 1 or 2 WM owners. One of the issues is to expand the number of folks on the board from 5 to 7 and that will pass. So now it will be 4 WM owners that must be elected to control the board. By that time other tricks will be used.
 
Last edited:

SleepinIn

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Points
1
How about teleconferencing? Summer Bay used to use often as a means of having board meetings with members who were in at least four states and two countries.

Fern
I know they have used it in the past. John Henley was in Australia for quite a while and obviously not attend all of the meetings in person.
 

cotraveller

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
1,175
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Denver
Let's assume that the WM BOD was faced with the following situation

Fred that is a huge exaggeration and you know it. There are years of development involved in the development of a new resort.

IF we are going to generate hypothetical situations, I can do that also.

In some cases a new resort opportunity might develop very quickly. A property becomes available for purchase in an area that the owners have expressed a desire for a new resort, but due to whatever reasons, it is determined that in order to make the deal possible it will be necessary to assign higher credit values to bring the resort into the WorldMark system.

That is the point at which a decision must be made. What is the overriding factor? Is it a desire to maintain all resorts at a fixed credit level or is it to provide the owners with a new resort in an area in which there has been indicated demand? What if the owners had previously indicated that they would be willing to accept new resorts at a higher credit value in order to gain access to those desirable areas? Perhaps not as high as was being anticipated for the new resort, but higher than the existing norm. So the decision is made to provide the owners the opportunity to have a new resort in a new area. Some owners are delighted with the new development; some are appalled at the higher credit values. You can never please everyone.

Is that the scenario for the acquisition and development of the San Diego resort? It seems to be as likely a scenario as any other, and does not require any sinister actions on the part of anyone involved. And it would appear that the decision was the right one even though some are grumbling about it. The resort is being booked, the resort is being utilized. It is hard to argue with that success.

Section 3.1(u) that WorldMark "Club. . hereby agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program or a Declaration of Annexation imposing upon all of the property in the Club (including, but not limited to any additional Units purchased by Declarant and conveyed to Club) the mutual and beneficial restrictions, convenants, and conditions of the program. . ."

You can add all the extras you wish, but the overriding fact is that the Vacation Program Agreement, a binding legal document signed by both WorldMark and Wyndham (or their predecessors), states that WorldMark “agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program” for each new unit or resort that is conveyed to the club by Wyndham.

If, in fact, our governing documents were to allow such a travesty, there are laws on the books which would cover such things as being unconscionable, or would find “lack of consideration.”

I realize I am repeating myself, but as I stated in my first post, I do not believe that any course of action that would potentially lead to court proceedings is in the best interest of the club or the owners. I do not condone such actions and I do not support such actions.
 

SleepinIn

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Points
1
You can add all the extras you wish, but the overriding fact is that the Vacation Program Agreement, a binding legal document signed by both WorldMark and Wyndham (or their predecessors), states that WorldMark “agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program” for each new unit or resort that is conveyed to the club by Wyndham.
Adding extras????? Are you kidding. What she added was what you left out.

Andy, if you think all is well, vote for the status quo. If you think something needs to be fixed, then don't.

There seems to be a huge disagreement here on whether or not credit dilution exists.

Here's how I see it: I bought my house 10 years ago for, let's say, $ 300,000. My neighbor bought his 10 days ago for $ 900,000. Let's imagine that while slightly different, they are essentially the same value and in fact, that's what the appraiser says. So, the question is, is his house worth more because he paid more? If we were both selling, do you think his would sell for much more because he paid much more?

No, you say? Then why will it cost more to stay in the Tropicana resort than the Spencer Street resort. Yes, Spencer Street is somewhat older, but the units are larger. We could compare other things, but Las Vegas is the easiest way to compare apples to apples.

If Wyndham needs to make more money, they need to increase the price of the credits to those buying NOW, just like if somebody wants to buy a house in my neighborhood, they have to pay more than I did because them came later.
 

T_R_Oglodyte

TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
16,117
Reaction score
8,066
Points
1,048
Location
Belly-View, WA
sounds to me as if ladycody could equally say that "cotraveller can remove all of the stuff he wants, there is still a legally binding document that says the Club is not required to accept whatever Wyndham decides to add".
 

PA-

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
1,276
Reaction score
1
Points
246
Location
San Antonio, TX
I want to vote an owner onto the WorldMark board, who has the best chance? I know a little, but havn't been following for a couple months. I just received my ballot in the mail today and I don't have a lot of time to do research.

Any help would be greatly appriceated.

Andy.

Andy,

The only way that an owner would be voted onto the board is if many (or most) owners "pooled" their votes together, rather than splitting them among the many independent candidates. There has NEVER been a challenger voted onto the board by a popular vote. All previous board members were either appointed by the board themselves, or else the board used their proxies to change the results of the owner's votes.

In the last election, the independent candidates got more votes combined than the incumbents did, for the first time in history. However, the incumbents were elected, due to votes being split among many candidates, and the Board's use of their proxies.

The only way to "pool" the votes of those owners that are wishing independent candidates is to assign proxies not to the board, but to an independent owner who will use them to elect qualified candidates. I've been trying to get owners to assign me their proxies for the last 2 years. I've been asking the board to change the way proxies are assigned for 3 years, to allow owners to do so electronically. This year, for the first time, they have agreed to that change in voting procedures, so you will be able to assign me (or any other owner) your proxy online. Or of course, you can do so by mail (and I assume by phone).

Last year, I assigned 100% of my proxies to the one independent who I felt had the best chance of election; Jim Pappas. I also felt he was a highly qualified candidate. Unfortunately, many owners either misunderstood my request for their proxies(rather than their votes), or else simply wanted to vote for me. Because despite my casting my proxies for Jim, I still got more votes than any other independent candidate. Combined, Jim & I got about the same number of votes as one of the incumbents (Jack McConnell), and close to the same as the other (John Hensley). I point this out to say we're getting closer than we've ever been to being able to actually elect independent board members.

The debate over whether you should vote independent or not is a valid debate. However, your original post, as I read it, indicates you've already decided to vote independent, and simply wanted an idea of the best way to make sure your vote will count. I know of no better way to have an impact than to assign me your proxy. Let me tell you some reasons why.

If owners voted for their choice of candidates, the votes would be split.

If enough people voted for me to get me elected, we'd be in the same boat next year, splitting our votes among the independents. However, if I got elected AND had lots of proxies, I could use those proxies to concentrate our votes next year on another independent candidate. Eventually, we would have an independent board.

Philip Abdouch
 

PerryM

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Spitting in the wind....

On this site and WMowners.com I’ve described in detail how Wyndham (WN) is:

1) Diluting the existing WM credits resulting in inflation (I coined the phrase “Corn field condos”)

2) Bulldozing new resorts upon us without the WM owners input

3) The existing way to add new resorts is NOT based upon sound accounting principles (No yearly appraisals of existing WM resorts to establish a “Current worth” per credit that must be matched by new resorts- I called for yearly appraisals)

4) We need the current 400+ employees who now work for WN to work for WM (I’m the one calling for this, I don’t know of anyone else)


These and many more topics are the purview of the CEO of WM and his legal team. To place this burden on the 5 folks who meet a few times a year is lunacy.

We are fighting the correct war but with the wrong army, 1 or 2 WM owners on the WM BOD. Our fight must be to take those 400 folks, who now work for WN and bring that army to WM to run this organization the way it should be run.

So vote for 1 person to the WM BOD all you want – you guys are spitting in the wind.


Me, I'll spend the time out foxing, out playing, and out lasting all you guys consumed with taking over the world.

P.S.
I encourage every WM owner to vote anyway they want. However, you must make a decision if you want to exploit the existing rules to your advantage or get involved with mobs wanting to tear down those rules and substitute their own. Me, I just want a management team for a Billion dollar organization that runs the place like a business and not an obsession.

Unless you've kept up with all the whacky ideas bantered about by these fanatical folks do what I'm doing and keep the status quo until some candidates come along who want 400 WM employees doing this. Management teams I trust, fanatical folks I fear.
 
Last edited:

PA-

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
1,276
Reaction score
1
Points
246
Location
San Antonio, TX
There are thousands of people working for Wyndham managing our resorts, not 400. What you're proposing will cost Worldmark millions, some of it redundant with charges we're already paying.

There are 3 functions that serve Worldmark;

1) Company that BUILDS resorts

2) Company that manages the resorts

3) Board of Directors that oversees both # 1 & 2 above.

Worldmark needn't necessarily be self-managed to get a quality product. However, it would be desirable to make sure that all 3 functions are independent of each other. Currently, all 3 functions are handled by Wyndham execs (or retired execs who may be on the payroll still, to some extent). This is not healthy.

I don't know that I would support self management, but I would strongly support the 3 functions be independent. You aren't the first to call for this, I've done so for years.

Wyndham won't easily divest # 1, that's their main source of revenue.

The Board has complete authority to award the management contract to anyone they want. I don't believe they've ever considered it, or gotten competitive bids from anyone else. While I'm generally satisfied with Wyndham's management (as opposed to their development) arm, I would support requiring Wyndham to divest either # 1 or 2 above. Whoever manages Worldmark MUST be free to report on any abuses by the developer (such as trying to book outside the 45 day window that Wyndham has, which they are violating with their "Party weekends"). They must be free to give the Board an honest assessment of construction flaws, help the Board set guidelines for unit size (square footage) and finish-out quality, and generally act as the Board's advisor in relations with the developer. They must be free to help the board determine the proper credit valuation per unit and resort, based on their knowledge of the areas and seasons. In short, they should be working for the club, not the developer.

# 3 should absolutely be independent of Wyndham. Wyndham's own corporate position on conflict of interest would prohibit a similar situation on the Wyndham Board of Directors. So why should Worldmark be different?

I'm not aware of the radical ideas you believe "some" candidates have for Worldmark. If transparency, independent arm's length transactions, and elimination of inside dealings are radical, count me in. If rule changes are, count me out. I'm satisfied with the current rules; I just want to see them enforced.
 
Top