Who represents us?

[vernon]

The document may be legal and valid but IMHO it's outdated. I don't mind their structure IF there is an easy avenue for the membership to make their feelings known. If we are being OBVIOUSLY dissadvantaged and IMHO at the moment we are, it is possible this is due to the ignorance of the board as to what the membership wants. If we can't contact them we can't educate them JMHO.

OK, please forgive me if you have been around over the last week but I think you may have missed some of the conversations.

Specifically
1) The rise in DC points costs that seem to be on average in the region of 30-40% from some of the Disney hotels ( GF and Poly seem to be the worst). Sure the developer maintains control for the design , no problem. BUT it is my opinion ( and several others ) that DVC's management/board has not been doing their job properly in negotiating with the Disney hotels the rates for the DC. The developer is separate from the boards duties in the running of DVC as how it works in the interet of the membership. I agree the developements are fine, the running of some of the programs are not. There are several threads on this subject with a number of views on it, I'm sure you'll find them soon enough LOL

It is an "amorphous" statement because it could be ANYTHING that people wish to raise, there have been several issues of late and I can't be bothered to go into all of them, simply if sufficient numbers of people wish to contact the board about a specific issue it should be possible to do so. It doesn't seem it is possible to raise issues with the board, I'd like that situation addressed in some fashion. I'm open to ideas as to how.

 

[bicker]

Originally posted by vernon
The document may be legal and valid but IMHO it's outdated.

Out-dated? Sorry, but that's like saying a 1903 property deed is out-dated. It just *isn't*. You may not like its tenets, but legal documents are not affected by time in that manner.

I don't mind their structure IF there is an easy avenue for the membership to make their feelings known.

That's not a requirement of the timeshare system. It sure is a nice-to-have, but there is no basis for saying it absolutely must be that way.

Specifically
1) The rise in DC points costs that seem to be on average in the region of 30-40% from some of the Disney hotels

You're talking about a program for which we had absolutely no assurances it would even continue into the future. They can end DC any time they wish. That we have it at all is more than we were promised.

Sorry but I'm not convinced.

 

[vernon]

Brian, maybe you can answer these because no one else has so far.

1) Is it standard practice in Timeshare developements in the US that the boards managing the running of those institutions have no representation from the membership?

2) If so do Mariotte and alike have owners organisations that liase with the board in an attempt to exchange ideas on what the membership actually want. Granted they may not get what they want if it's impractical but IMHO it would be "nice" for the boards to know what we'd like. I genuinely think if it was possible to have a dialogue with them both parties would be happy with the outcome and understand what the others want.

For the DVC board to believe they know what is wanted and what's best for the membership is extremely arrogant. They could appear a lot more "user friendly". What does Disney lose by allowing the membership to make it's feelings known?

For Disney to "guarantee" anything like DC for 50 years is impossible ( they require the flexibility to change the program) BUT it doesn't take away from the fact that SOMETHING like DC has to be in position for a points "first come first served" to be able to absorb peaks and troughs of demand JMHO. I've made my views on that system many times of late and I'm not going to "re-argue them" because I'm not going to change my mind. If you disagree I'll agree to disagree with you now LOL.

 

[bicker]

Originally posted by vernon
1) Is it standard practice in Timeshare developements in the US that the boards managing the running of those institutions have no representation from the membership?

That was one of the things that we found most distressing about DVC before we bought in. That was a very strange arrangement, but again, we all knew about it before we bought it.

 

[vernon]

Is that a no then?


I'll thank you now for any more enlightenment you can add as I have to be up for work in 6 hours . But I appreciate your views Brian ( as always) and look forward to continueing the conversation over the next few days

 

[JudithM]

Vernon, if you have a specific concern regarding DVC, then why don't you write or email (I trust either of these options is less expensive from the UK than a phone call) Member Services? If you want to post your specific DVC concern, then I will email my DVC contacts & ask them to whom they think you should address your comments. I reiterate my earlier comments that I have always found DVC CMs to genuinely listen to my comments - both the good & the not so good!

 

[bicker]

I don't remember how I found out, but indeed the DVC arrangement is unusual as compared to many other timeshares. It was unique from the start that there was no unit-owner input into the decisions.

 

[gscott8075]

The Disney Collection, pool hopping, discounts, exchanges are subject to termination at any time.

We are only guaranteed that we can book at our home resort on a priority basis over other owners (11 months is not a guarantee either) and that we can book at other DVC resorts at 7 months out.

We are guaranteed that the base number of points per villa unit cannot change in total (but, they can be re-allocated over the course of the year)

We are guaranteed that certain components of the dues cannot increase more than 15% per year.

This is the "meat of DVC"

Everything else is gravy -

 

[vernon]

Brian , thanks for that answer. I'd guessed that was the case but I appreciate it being confirmed.

Judith I'd like to know who on the board is responsible for members interests being protected. Failing that I'd like to know the contact names and addresses for people on the board of DVC and how to raise a question at the AGM. ( email me those if possible)

GScott a "first come first served" points system can NOT opperate unless their is some type of overflow system in place to account for fluctuating demand. While II exchanges,CC and the cruise are useful alternates they are not primary or VITAL alternatives and as such IMHO expendable. HOWEVER the majority of people bought DVC because they want to visit WDW if there is nothing in place to allow for seasonal demand the whole system will collapse into chaos. I don't care if the over flow is Wilderness cabins, budget hotels, moderates or delux as long as they are not at a punative price so people can spend their time on WDW It may not be "constitutionally guaranteed", indeed I don't see how Disney could possibly guarantee that one particular system will be in place for 50 years BUT practicalities demand that some workable safety valve is in place at WDW in the unlikely event of a "bottle neck" of points building up JMHO.

As DVC expands and sells out I think is vital that the board acknowledges it has a duty to the owners to do their best to give people the opportunity to vacation at Disney in some way , shape or form. It's in the owners interest BUT IS ALSO IN DISNEY'S interest. I don't think ANYONE benefits if we're forced off site/away from Orlando by over crowding at DVC resorts and being outpriced by expensive DC choices.

 

[bicker]

Originally posted by vernon
GScott a "first come first served" points system can NOT opperate unless their is some type of overflow system in place to account for fluctuating demand.

Seasonal demand is handled by the points system itself. The fact that the points are so much higher in "High" season decreases demand in that season. Many DVC members aim for the "Low" seaons because the points are lower.

HOWEVER the majority of people bought DVC because they want to visit WDW

I hope you're talking about folks who bought into OKW, BWV and VWL, because I strongly believe that DVC has no responsibility to VB and HH owners vis a vis staying at WDW.

It may not be "constitutionally guaranteed", indeed I don't see how Disney could possibly guarantee that one particular system will be in place for 50 years BUT practicalities demand that some workable safety valve is in place at WDW in the unlikely event of a "bottle neck" of points building up JMHO.

That's why banking and borrowing are limited to just one year one way or the other.

As DVC expands and sells out I think is vital that the board acknowledges it has a duty to the owners to do their best to give people the opportunity to vacation at Disney in some way , shape or form.

Again, only the OKW, BWV and VWL owners (and BCV, etc.), and again, the variable point system handles that.

 

[Dean]

It's been a while since I looked at this but I did extensively at one time. The POS is ambiguous. In places, it suggests that the board will be turned over to the members when it reaches a certain level of ownership, 65% comes to mind but it's set up in stages. In other places, it clearly directs everything for Disney to remain in charge. The clincher is that those that bought directly from DVC signed a contract giving Disney power to vote for them forever. Those that bought resale never signed such a contract and it's my understanding that there's nothing in the original contract or deed that obligates subsequent owners to that same provision.

While unusual, this situation is not unique in the timeshare world. I can think of at least one other developer (HI) that has this type of arrangement and I'm sure there are others. By law, DVC must distrubute documents, surveys, etc to the members at the requesters expense. I wonder what they'd do if we got together and sent out a solicitation asking members about changing to Marriott or Starwood as a management company. I bet they'd really scramble at that time.

There should be direct member representation to the Board either as actual Board members or as ex oficio members.

 

[WebmasterDoc]

Those that bought resale never signed such a contract and it's my understanding that there's nothing in the original contract or deed that obligates subsequent owners to that same provision.

While I don't have a POS nearby, my understanding of the contract documents is that the resold contract carries with it all aspects of the original contract, including any covenants agreed to by the original purchaser. This would, by definition, obligate subsequent buyers to the same agreements.

The same holds true with any restrictive covenant placed on real estate, the covenant is carried over to any subsequent purchase. (I'm sure our resident attorneys can point out exceptions to this.)

I'm confident that if members at any DVC voted to replace DVD as the management entity with any other organization, that resort would cease to be able to exchange within the DVC family or any of the other current options. That likelyhood is very clearly spelled out in our documents. Members should be clearly aware of the implications of replacing Disney as management before considering such a drastic (IMHO) action.

I think it foolish to assume that Marriott or Starwood could negotiate better admission discounts with Disney than we already have. Perhaps Universal would negotiate.

What great WDW admission discounts does Marriott/Starwood offer to their members now?? Can they exchange into GF, Poly or Contemp?? How is their tran
sportation to/from the parks - less than every 20-30 minutes??

Be careful what you wish for....you just may get it!

 

[vernon]

Brian , I respectfully disagree. While the differing points values/seasons discourages use at certain times , there is nothing that makes it impossible for a bottleneck to arise in exceptional circumstance. No I'm not talking about HH and Vero owners ( although they benefit as well) The numbers at WDW are sufficient to creat a bottleneck. IMHO it's prudent to have a system in place that in exceptional circumstance acts as a safety valve and to have that in place BEFORE it's needed. It's easy and simple to do, so why not do it?

It isn't impossible , for example in WDW 50th anniversary, that a large %age of owners bank their points the year before and that a slightly above average numbers of users want/have to vacation ( school holidays) at a similar time to one another. It would be possible to roll over some of those points to the following year but IMHO once it is realised there has been a problem with the system ( i.e. over booked) a large number of POTENTIAL visitors are going to make sure they have their dates the next year. If the cancel at a later date it's going to be a nightmare working around the availability of rooms/resorts to fit everyone in.

All I'm suggesting is that DVC's board acknowledge that possibility and make attempts to put in place something to cover that situation. IT IS IN DISNEY'S INTEREST TO DO SO.

IMHO someone has taken their "eye off the ball" and if we ( owners) can help them it it would help everyone concerned if we knew who to tell where to find it .

If we see an obvious error ( and IMHO putting DC points use at ridiculous and unusable levels is an obvious error) then we should have an easy route to make that known. We are at the "sharp end" of points use and there are possibly in a better situation to see problems before they become over whelming.

 

[WebmasterDoc]

it's prudent to have a system in place that in exceptional circumstance acts as a safety valve and to have that in place BEFORE it's needed.

That safety valve already exists, as banking/borrowing can also be modified or eliminated. Yes, it's the board's responsibility to monitor that aspect of the program and thus far, they seem to have done a remarkable job of it (IMHO).

We can all certainly conjure up scenarios where the current systems might be strained and then assume that other programs, like DC, were originally designed as a safety valve, but I don't believe that wa the case. I think that DC (and the other options) were all structured as mere options in the program. The points used for those options still require that cash reservations be made at DVC resorts- which removes no strain from the reservation system at all- it merely sustains it.

The Boards responsibility, IMHO, is to oversee the operation of the DVC program and to ensure that DVC meets it's contractual obligations. IMO, there is no directive to offer discounts or other accommdation options. The fact that we have those other options speaks well for the board acheiving more for the membership than their actual duty. The fact that some are disappointed in the scope of the "extra perks" is immaterial to the true responsibility of the board.

Issues like admission discounts, cost of alternative (non-DVC) options and recreational programs, while nice options, are not really the responsibility of the board, IMO. They are above and beyond that responsibility and may be discontinued at any time. How can something which legally can be discontinued, be construed as the responsibility of the board to maintain to the satisfaction of everyone??

 

[jctwizzer]

IMHO Vernon has made a point, found that he's hasn't garned much support for his Marxist leanings, and is now continuing to beat a dead horse. IMHO his suggestions make as much sense as the ones for additional perks from DVC-----basically there is no motivation for DVC to do either at this time.

 

[vernon]

Doc, any juggling with " banking and borrowing" is just going to push any problem further down the road. The pressure will not be released by allowing extra years banking points or even multilple years of banking points. It's just storing it up.

Once it is felt that bookings are scarce people will be booking 10-11 months in advance IN CASE they need that booking. They may cancel it a month/6 weeks ahead of arival ( as they are allowed to do ) but it's potentially a nightmare for people's planning. It may not be right, it may not be "socially responsible" but people's attitude will be to book first, make sure they are OK and %*& everyone else, I'm covered.

God I hope I'm never in the situation to say " I told you so" , because it's EASY to head off and NO ONE is disadvantaged by planning ahead.

 

[WebmasterDoc]

The pressure will not be released by allowing extra years banking points or even multilple years of banking points. It's just storing it up.

Perhaps you misunderstood my point. Banking and Borrowing can be suspended or eliminated if needed. If it becomes apparent that either is getting ahead of a reasonable balance during the course of a year, the option can be removed at any time. I'm still confident that the Board has paid attention to that very balance.

Just as the Special Seasons Priority List was used for several years, it has now been discontinued- probably because the resorts were never filled from the list and it also caused some confusion/consternation among members. It has been curtailed for now, but can be resurrected if a need is perceived. IMHO, this is an example of the board responding to the needs of the program (and thus the needs of the members).

When I purchased, the caveat "based on availability" was clearly understood. Perhaps some have missed that important clause in the documents. It is very clearly stated and repeated numerous times, both in the POS and in member guidebooks. It is also a critical component of our reservation system. Since we don't own a fixed, specific week, we are forced to base all reservations on a first come- first served basis. I can't think of a more fair system.

 

[LIDisneyFan]

Another slightly OT post, but one of the reasons which convince me to buy at DVC was precisely the fact that the owners signed over their right to vote to DVC. This may seem misguided (and those who know me realize I'ma control freak, so this is very out of character), but I have seen too many cases where owners have run of the timeshare, then let the property run down to keep costs down. Disney has a vested interest NOT to let that happen. At then end of the period they want to ensure they get back commerically viable property, which we have agreed to maintain for 42 years for them.

I don't want to have to be concerned that owners will refuse to keep up the property. I'd rather sign over my rights.

Just my reasons.

We may now return to the post already in progress.........

 

[caveat lector]

I do not believe Vernon is beating a dead horse.

My original thread intent, was just a request for a pipeline to the board. It is not necessarily a desire to change or condem decisions. I didn't intend to focus on specific points, because of the "attack mode" kind of responses it would elicit (see Bicker).

Unpopular decisions are a way life. On occasion, they are an absolute necessity to maintain the products viability. However, it would be beneficial to receive explanations or rationale behind the decision. In addition, feedback directly to the source, might yield some valuable nuggets.

CMs and Member Service Reps are great. However, they do not offer the contact to which I refer. Are they required to acknowledge my concern, absolutely not. Is it healthly for a governing body to live in a vacuum, doubtful.

 

[WebmasterDoc]

a "first come first served" points system can NOT opperate unless their is some type of overflow system in place to account for fluctuating demand.

I am personally aware of 2 other timeshares which use a point system. One, Fairfiled, has had a point system much longer than DVC (and even claims in it's sales presentations to have "sold" the system to DVC). Another is Amber Vacations- which is a small collection of resorts.

Neither one has any overflow system, but utilizes the concept of "use-it-or-lose-it". The ultimate responsibility to use the points lies securely with the member- the organization makes this quite clear.

In the case of Amber, non home reservations may be made 6 months in advance and home reservations may be made 12 months ahead.

In the case of Fairfield, extra points may be purchased (for a one-time usage) if more are needed for a specific reservation. I'm not clear on how this doesn't violate state timeshare laws regarding overselling a resort, but I'm sure there is some provision which allows the practice.

To reiterate an earlier comment about the Disney Collection, IMO it was NOT created to be used as an overflow or "safety" valve, but merely as another option to use points. It is not a contractual component of DVC, but merely an option whose value is to be decided by each member.

I don't consider DVC to be a discount park admission program, a golf program or a dining program- it is a timeshare program which provides an opportunity for great accommodations at a variety of locations. The only location which is guaranteed to me is my home resort....and that is on an as-available basis.

Everything else is gravy.

Enjoy!

BTW, mail to the Board of Directors may be sent to:

Disney Vacation Club
Management Corporation
200 Celebration Place
Celebration, FL 34747