Register
It is currently Sun 28 May 2017 1:10 pm

2013 Detailed Election Results Discussion and off-topic

View active topics

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 PostPosted: Wed 11 Dec 2013 3:46 pm   
User avatar

Joined: Thu 14 Apr 2005 7:10 pm
Posts: 16174
Location: Southern California
CandidatesDirect Vote-Est. Dev. Vote= Est. Owner VoteBoD ProxiesOwner ProxiesTotal VoteNON-WYNDHAM Total
*Geoff Richards91,98422,55069,43446,6060138,59069,434
*M. Cecila Cuevas82,80722,55060,25746,6060129,41360,257
*Bob Morrison80,73222,55058,18246,6060127,33858,182
Matt Shiner80,529080,529038,802119,331119,331
Jack Bowers13,978013,9780013,978 13,978
TOTAL350,03067,650282,380139,81838,802528,650321,182


* Denotes incumbent

The numbers for the direct vote and proxy vote was obtained from the December 2013 issue of Destinations.
Note: The report contained in Destinations is inaccurate for the total votes cast for Geoff Richards. It was 90 short which I added to his vote count.

Using the data reported at the Annual Owner Meeting where the quorum was announced WITHOUT the developer vote, and then the final tally posted on the Worldmark, The Club website, we were able to extrapolate the developer vote. We are also making the assumption that this was was split evenly, as were the proxies that were controlled by the current Board of Directors. Those numbers could be different but would have no significant impact. What is important to know is that without either the developer vote or the BoD-controlled proxies, Matt would have easily won a seat.

With Wyndham controlling 207,468 vote points of the total of 528,650, that is 40%. So who really votes in the directors?

Updated 19 Dec 2013 with corrected developer vote. Changed from 23,502 per candidate to 22,550 per candidate. These votes may have been split differently, but they would certainly go to the same candidates who got the BoD-controlled proxies.

_________________
Lynn

Do NOT assign your proxy to the BoD. Assign your proxy to WMOwners, Inc.

STOP Increased Credit Requirements and Credit Dilution


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Wed 11 Dec 2013 5:12 pm   

Joined: Mon 27 Dec 2010 9:01 am
Posts: 2671
I dont see the Dec destinations on the website....Do you have a link you can post

The question I have is this...Are direct votes, votes cast by people actually at the meeting?

and one more question...why did you put the word without in all caps? I must be missing something

_________________
Ron Parise


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Wed 11 Dec 2013 6:11 pm   
User avatar

Joined: Thu 14 Apr 2005 7:10 pm
Posts: 16174
Location: Southern California
ronparise wrote:
I dont see the Dec destinations on the website....Do you have a link you can post

The question I have is this...Are direct votes, votes cast by people actually at the meeting?

and one more question...why did you put the word without in all caps? I must be missing something


1) I got this from the hardcopy. I don't see it online either.

2) Direct votes are really mostly, directed votes. Most of those are cast by proxy, but the owners specify to whom their votes go.

3) Just to help anybody who heard that announcement remember that what they announced was owner, excluding the developer voting power.

They way it appeared in Destinations is "Direct votes" and "Unassigned proxies." What they really mean by unassigned proxies is that they gave the proxy hold freedom as to how to cast the ballot as opposed those that specified one or more candidates.

_________________
Lynn

Do NOT assign your proxy to the BoD. Assign your proxy to WMOwners, Inc.

STOP Increased Credit Requirements and Credit Dilution


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Wed 11 Dec 2013 6:27 pm   
User avatar

Joined: Thu 14 Apr 2005 7:10 pm
Posts: 16174
Location: Southern California
BTW, my best guess of how the developer vote was split would be this: 50% for Richards, 30% for Cuevas, and 20% for Morrison. It's just a WAG on my part.

_________________
Lynn

Do NOT assign your proxy to the BoD. Assign your proxy to WMOwners, Inc.

STOP Increased Credit Requirements and Credit Dilution


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Mon 23 Dec 2013 4:04 pm   
User avatar

Joined: Wed 22 Aug 2007 5:36 pm
Posts: 2
Location: Kansas City
A point I haven't seen addressed: If independent vote hadn't been split, Matt would have had the highest "direct" vote total and second highest overall total. Any way we can get independent owners to leave the field open to Matt for next election? The extra 13K votes would have made all the difference.

_________________
Elect an INDEPENDENT BOARD!
WM resorts: Lake Ozarks, Estes Park, Lake Tahoe, Kona, Cabo, San Francisco, Windsor, Branson


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Mon 23 Dec 2013 5:20 pm   
User avatar

Joined: Sat 06 Mar 2004 3:28 pm
Posts: 18072
Location: Puget Sound
rwgelan wrote:
A point I haven't seen addressed: If independent vote hadn't been split, Matt would have had the highest "direct" vote total and second highest overall total. Any way we can get independent owners to leave the field open to Matt for next election? The extra 13K votes would have made all the difference.


Other independents are always going to run. Sometimes they are recruited.

_________________
* Donate to WMO HERE
* Have YOU assigned YOUR 3-year Proxy to WM Owners, Inc. yet? By Owners, For Owners!
* The WM Board Votes Owner Proxies for Wyndham People, NOT According to Owner Votes (see 2013 Election, Prior Years)
Owner since 2002. Have Visited 31 Worldmark, & 31 Exchanged Resorts - we love our Worldmark!


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Mon 23 Dec 2013 7:06 pm   
User avatar

Joined: Mon 04 Dec 2006 2:11 pm
Posts: 1995
LLW wrote:
rwgelan wrote:
A point I haven't seen addressed: If independent vote hadn't been split, Matt would have had the highest "direct" vote total and second highest overall total. Any way we can get independent owners to leave the field open to Matt for next election? The extra 13K votes would have made all the difference.


Other independents are always going to run. Sometimes they are recruited.


Some may feel that they are more likely to succeed if they are not branded with the WMO, Inc. endorsement. Others, like Bob Morrison do succeed and serve the membership well with their financial background and expertise.

_________________
"Obstacles are those frightful things you can see when you take your eyes off your goal."
Henry Ford


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Mon 23 Dec 2013 7:24 pm   
User avatar

Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004 4:51 pm
Posts: 10453
rwgelan wrote:
A point I haven't seen addressed: If independent vote hadn't been split, Matt would have had the highest "direct" vote total and second highest overall total. Any way we can get independent owners to leave the field open to Matt for next election? The extra 13K votes would have made all the difference.


viewtopic.php?p=321729#p321729

_________________
WM Owner since 1999


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Mon 23 Dec 2013 10:13 pm   
User avatar

Joined: Sat 06 Mar 2004 3:28 pm
Posts: 18072
Location: Puget Sound
drguy wrote:
LLW wrote:
rwgelan wrote:
A point I haven't seen addressed: If independent vote hadn't been split, Matt would have had the highest "direct" vote total and second highest overall total. Any way we can get independent owners to leave the field open to Matt for next election? The extra 13K votes would have made all the difference.


Other independents are always going to run. Sometimes they are recruited.


Some may feel that they are more likely to succeed if they are not branded with the WMO, Inc. endorsement. Others, like Bob Morrison do succeed and serve the membership well with their financial background and expertise.

If I remember correctly, Morrison did get the WMO endorsement one year, and did win. Some, on the other hand, did not get the WMO endorsement and did not win. So it looks like the Wyndham endorsement has been the key, not the WMO endorsement. Many independents have run and not gotten a Board seat (I don't want to name names :mrgreen: , but I think we should thank them all for running), due to the Board proxies that the Board controls. And that is typical of any Board election.

What do you have in your signature line? "Don't take your eyes off the goals" or something like that? :)

_________________
* Donate to WMO HERE
* Have YOU assigned YOUR 3-year Proxy to WM Owners, Inc. yet? By Owners, For Owners!
* The WM Board Votes Owner Proxies for Wyndham People, NOT According to Owner Votes (see 2013 Election, Prior Years)
Owner since 2002. Have Visited 31 Worldmark, & 31 Exchanged Resorts - we love our Worldmark!


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Tue 24 Dec 2013 9:20 am   
User avatar

Joined: Sat 07 Jan 2012 1:43 am
Posts: 882
Location: Puget sound
rwgelan wrote:
A point I haven't seen addressed: If independent vote hadn't been split, Matt would have had the highest "direct" vote total and second highest overall total. Any way we can get independent owners to leave the field open to Matt for next election? The extra 13K votes would have made all the difference.


No matter how everyone, included you and me wish some fresh air on the BoD, it is a democratic election process. No one could dictate who runs or who not run as well who votes for whom. Even developer is a one-of-kind (large) owner and entitled to its own preference by votes.

_________________
Arrow Point, Avenue Plaza, Bear lake, Canadian, Clear Lake, Depoe Bay, Discovery Bay, Gleneden, Indio, La Cascada(+A), Las Vegas-Boulevard, Leavenworth, Midway, National Harbor(+A) Oceanside, Palm Springs, Rancho Vistoso, Running Y, San Diego-Mission Valley, San Francisco, Santa Fe, Schooner Landing, Seaside, St. George, Steamboat Springs, Victoria, West Yellowstone


Last edited by Benyu2010 on Thu 26 Dec 2013 6:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Tue 24 Dec 2013 4:39 pm   
User avatar

Joined: Fri 19 Aug 2005 9:02 am
Posts: 4517
Location: Henderson, NV
drguy wrote:
LLW wrote:
rwgelan wrote:
A point I haven't seen addressed: If independent vote hadn't been split, Matt would have had the highest "direct" vote total and second highest overall total. Any way we can get independent owners to leave the field open to Matt for next election? The extra 13K votes would have made all the difference.


Other independents are always going to run. Sometimes they are recruited.


Some may feel that they are more likely to succeed if they are not branded with the WMO, Inc. endorsement. Others, like Bob Morrison do succeed and serve the membership well with their financial background and expertise.

Really?!?!
Name one non-WYN candidate that pulled more votes then our WMO endorsed candidate?
Just because a small vocal minority of another vocal minority thinks WMO doesn't do it right doesn't mean you throw away the play book.

_________________
WM=Kihei, Seaside, Gleneden, Mariner Village, Orlando, Ocean Walk, Lake Chelan, St George, Las Vegas, Birch Bay, Indio, Camlin, Leavenworth, Yellowstone, Arrow Point, Kapaa, Eagle Crest, Midway, McCall, Coral Baja, Cascade Lodge, Canadian, Elysian, Oceanside, Mission Valley, Balboa Park, Kona, Windsor, L.V. Spencer St, 7th Mtn, Reno: other=Bay Club, Summit Watch, Grand Oasis, Marriott Kauai, Camelback resort, Paradise Beach Villas, Bavarro Princess, Club Cala de Palmas, Pend Oreille Shores, Copamarina Beach Resort, Whistler Town Plaza, Kona Coast, Wavecrest at Del Mar, Grand Mayan N.V., WYN Mauna Loa, Kings Land


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Tue 24 Dec 2013 6:57 pm   
User avatar

Joined: Sat 06 Mar 2004 3:28 pm
Posts: 18072
Location: Puget Sound
DenMar wrote:
drguy wrote:
Some may feel that they are more likely to succeed if they are not branded with the WMO, Inc. endorsement. Others, like Bob Morrison do succeed and serve the membership well with their financial background and expertise.

Really?!?!
Name one non-WYN candidate that pulled more votes then our WMO endorsed candidate?
Just because a small vocal minority of another vocal minority thinks WMO doesn't do it right doesn't mean you throw away the play book.


Or, name one Wyn candidate (whether real incumbent or appointed-"incumbent") who got more non-Wyn votes than the WMO-endorsed candidate(s) in recent years. There was none. WMO has been endorsing owner-preferred candidates - many people keep volunteering, because they realize how important it is for the Club.

2013
Wyn Candidate ("Wyn")
Richards 69,434
Cuevas 60,257
Morrison 58,182
WMO-endorsed, Non-Wyn ("NW")
Shiner 119,331

2012
Wyn
Henley 22,290
Herrick 20,267
NW
Shiner 90,580

2011
Wyn
Morrison 40,345
Cuevas 35,931
Byrd 9,871
NW
Moody 48,619

2010
Wyn
Henley 8,838
Herrick 8,245
NW
Connors 11,051
Moody 11,042
Tribe 45,375

2009
Wyn
Hensley 21,891
Fry 22,262
Morrison 15,981
NW
Tribe 79,675

And more:

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=39420

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=36438

_________________
* Donate to WMO HERE
* Have YOU assigned YOUR 3-year Proxy to WM Owners, Inc. yet? By Owners, For Owners!
* The WM Board Votes Owner Proxies for Wyndham People, NOT According to Owner Votes (see 2013 Election, Prior Years)
Owner since 2002. Have Visited 31 Worldmark, & 31 Exchanged Resorts - we love our Worldmark!


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Tue 24 Dec 2013 7:38 pm   
User avatar

Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004 6:54 pm
Posts: 4167
Location: Yakima, Washington
rwgelan wrote:
A point I haven't seen addressed: If independent vote hadn't been split, Matt would have had the highest "direct" vote total and second highest overall total. Any way we can get independent owners to leave the field open to Matt for next election? The extra 13K votes would have made all the difference.




Many owners do not understand that they can cast all of their (3 votes in 2013, 2 votes in 2014) for a single candidate.

I think this is because there is a tendency to think in terms of state or federal elections where (to my knowledge) it is not possible to vote more than once for the same candidate. WorldMark's is a corporate election process with little similarity to a state or federal election. In the California corporate (WorldMark's) election process, you can change your proxy holder and/or redirect your proxy holder on how to vote right up to close of the ballot box on election day. This is because no votes are cast except at the annual meeting...which is another point many folks do not understand.

WorldMark has no primary election process. So if you have 6 or 8 candidates running for 2 or 3 positions, votes will be scattered around like a shotgun blast. This year, there were only two, non-Wyndham supported candidates which helped in that regard.

Also, many owners do not understand the benefit gained by assigning their proxy to WM Owners, Inc. without voting. By not voting, WM Owners, Inc. can cast those votes as a block for a single candidate. If an owner assigns their proxy to a proxy holder and directs the proxy holder to vote 1 vote for candidate "A" and one vote candidate "B", they are directing the proxy holder how to vote, and are "diluting their vote; i.e. the vote for candidate "B" is basically a vote lost from Candidate "A".

WM Owners, Inc. does try to get this information out to owners. Owners like you can help.

_________________
Gary
Assign your proxy to WM Owners, Inc. Do NOT assign your proxy to WorldMark's BOD.
Owner since 2003.


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Wed 25 Dec 2013 4:44 pm   
User avatar

Joined: Tue 11 Nov 2008 1:20 pm
Posts: 3864
Location: San Antonio, TX
LLW wrote:
Or, name one Wyn candidate (whether real incumbent or appointed-"incumbent") who got more non-Wyn votes than the WMO-endorsed candidate(s) in recent years. There was none. WMO has been endorsing owner-preferred candidates - many people keep volunteering, because they realize how important it is for the Club.

2011
Wyn
Morrison 40,345
Cuevas 35,931
Byrd 9,871
NW
Moody 48,619


This is confusing. Since WMO voted proxies for Morrison and Cuevas in this 2011 election.

Are you saying that WMO voted for Morrison and Cuevas in 2011, but did not endorse them?

Also your math is extremely biased. You remove the BoD proxies from the vote total, but include the WMO proxies. And you remove additional votes from direct vote total based on speculation on how the developer voted. Creating the illusion that your vote totals are fact based.

_________________
Eric

FACT: We have two independent BoD members - Bob Morrison and Cecilia Cuevas. You can trust that they are independent BoD members, because WMOwners Inc. cast proxy votes for them in the 2011 election. Both of these owners do not have any current or previous financial ties to Wyndham, and meet the IRS and SEC criteria for independent board members.


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Wed 25 Dec 2013 11:21 pm   
User avatar

Joined: Sat 06 Mar 2004 3:28 pm
Posts: 18072
Location: Puget Sound
LLW wrote:
DenMar wrote:
drguy wrote:
Some may feel that they are more likely to succeed if they are not branded with the WMO, Inc. endorsement. Others, like Bob Morrison do succeed and serve the membership well with their financial background and expertise.

Really?!?!
Name one non-WYN candidate that pulled more votes then our WMO endorsed candidate?
Just because a small vocal minority of another vocal minority thinks WMO doesn't do it right doesn't mean you throw away the play book.


Or, name one Wyn candidate (whether real incumbent or appointed-"incumbent") who got more non-Wyn votes than the WMO-endorsed candidate(s) in recent years. There was none. WMO has been endorsing owner-preferred candidates - many people keep volunteering, because they realize how important it is for the Club.

2013
Wyn Candidate ("Wyn")
Richards 69,434
Cuevas 60,257
Morrison 58,182
WMO-endorsed, Non-Wyn ("NW")
Shiner 119,331

2012
Wyn
Henley 22,290
Herrick 20,267
NW
Shiner 90,580

2011
Wyn
Morrison 40,345
Cuevas 35,931
Byrd 9,871
NW
Moody 48,619

2010
Wyn
Henley 8,838
Herrick 8,245
NW
Connors 11,051
Moody 11,042
Tribe 45,375

2009
Wyn
Hensley 21,891
Fry 22,262
Morrison 15,981
NW
Tribe 79,675

And more:

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=39420

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=36438



ecwinch wrote:
This is confusing. Since WMO voted proxies for Morrison and Cuevas in this 2011 election.

Are you saying that WMO voted for Morrison and Cuevas in 2011, but did not endorse them?

Also your math is extremely biased. You remove the BoD proxies from the vote total, but include the WMO proxies. And you remove additional votes from direct vote total based on speculation on how the developer voted. Creating the illusion that your vote totals are fact based.

LLW wrote:
Or, name one Wyn candidate (whether real incumbent or appointed-"incumbent") who got more non-Wyn votes than the WMO-endorsed candidate(s) in recent years. There was none. WMO has been endorsing owner-preferred candidates - many people keep volunteering, because they realize how important it is for the Club.

2011
Wyn
Morrison 40,345
Cuevas 35,931
Byrd 9,871
NW
Moody 48,619



You have to study the embedded drguy's post to understand.

If you look at the 2011 thread at all, you would know that it was fact-based (and Lynn posted it, not me). But the attempt was to calculate non-Wyndham votes, not proxies. The number of Wyn's developer votes was based on exclusion of other votes, since Wyn would not disclose how they voted the developer votes.
2011 Thread:
viewtopic.php?f=53&t=32905

Drguy was saying that anyone "branded" by the WMO endorsement would not win. I was just saying that in this case, WMO did vote for and endorse Morrison and Cuevas, and they did win. That's all.

The Wyn candidates (including Morrison and Cuevas) won because of the Wyn votes. They did not lose because of the WMO votes. Quite contrarily, they lost hugely in the owner-directed, non-Wyn votes area (other than the one time that WMO did vote for them) and would have lost if not because of Wyn's votes.

_________________
* Donate to WMO HERE
* Have YOU assigned YOUR 3-year Proxy to WM Owners, Inc. yet? By Owners, For Owners!
* The WM Board Votes Owner Proxies for Wyndham People, NOT According to Owner Votes (see 2013 Election, Prior Years)
Owner since 2002. Have Visited 31 Worldmark, & 31 Exchanged Resorts - we love our Worldmark!


Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Style originally created by Volize © 2003 • Redesigned SkyLine by MartectX © 2008 - 2010