The response from DVC executives was about as forthright as one could expect. Members are not going to get a proverbial seat at the table. (And even if we did, not everyone’s pet project would pass muster—anyone who has been involved with a homeowners’ or condo association knows that few policies/projects are met with universal praise.)
I would have a hard time arguing against this point. But that is not to say that the answer was forthright. A forthright answer is that "As one of the most profitable divisions within The Walt Disney Company, we have only one objective: to create a marketable product that continues to generate the most profit possible without damaging the brand and affecting sales." But I'm not naive enough to expect that answer, of course.
The reason this particular member's expression of frustration with the decision making process resonated so much with the audience, and why it received the uproarious applause it did, was that a lot of members out there share that frustration; perhaps not the particular issue with pool shading, but the nature of the organizations decision making; bulk shampoo, conditioner, and body soap; an OKW redesign that seems to have killed the charm, character, and appeal of it's previous incarnation; or the active decision to continue selling small contracts at higher per point costs at small resorts that could not possibly accommodate the ratio of planned studio usage; are all motivated by one thing only: bottom line. Full stop.
Where this all becomes hard to digest is when they do the lip service of talking about how important we are as members, when the reality is we are only as important as our ability and willingness to proselytize about the virtues of DVC ownership. For almost two hours, they celebrated how great they've been as an organization (yes, collective bargaining is messy, but it's insulting to turn around and exult about how important it is to the organization to take care of it's most vulnerable employees), and how happy we've been as members. Couched in addressing our interests, were decisions being made serve the bottom line.
Yes, we have benefited from a better member website, but that decision was driven by the financial impact of relying more on automation and less on CM phone interface. There will never be a decision made that does not first serve the bottom line.
Once a contract is sold, we are a captive audience with only one option for substantive change: to sell out of the system. Whether we complain about it and continue to pay dues or we sell, those dues continue to be paid. With that structure of a membership, where is the motivation for DVCMC to make member-driven changes? There isn't one. And Terri pointing out that the "Member Representative" (an employee paid by The Walt Disney Company) "is also a member" as another assertion of membership concerns being represented was just insulting.
While their response was, as you stated it, "about as forthright as one could expect" maybe we should reframe our expectations.