.
This is an interesting topic to say the least. However; We do not agree with doing this “association” because it could easily turn into something like the UAW and put the squeeze on the DVC. Not saying it will, just saying (IMO) that it could.
Also, didn’t we all sign a contract? Aren’t there certain clauses in the contract that state what DVC can and cannot change without notifying us? If we are not notified and they are contractually obligated to notify us then we can all stand up and request legal action. If they make a non contract binding change (i.e. the changes they made to the 2010 points charts) then we don’t have a voice anyways. Yes, we can call and complain or send nasty grams but that will not make any difference. As I recall the contract tells us of some of the items they (DVC) have a right to change without notice. Mine did…
in regard to a proposed unofficial condo association
. . FYI, most large unions in PIT have re-opened their contracts more than once in last few years to keep their members working
& most of the 'new hires' (think those employed in last 20 years) in the area steel mills now have college degrees, many post graduate....to stereotype them as dumb mill hunks is incorrect
. You think it'd go both ways...yet very doubtful DVC would reopen the contract based upon many member's circumstances changing.
i'd like to think that our calls & emails are the best route, know with the dining plan I was told that the large volume of requests was the reason behind it being offered after the 1st year
And that's a really good thing.
Condo/Homeowner associations don't work for the good of the members. They work for the good of the association and for the pet interests of the association board members. And, unfortunately, there tends to be a strong negative correlation between "the kind of people you want to represent you" and "the kind of people who are interested in association boards".
Not really in this case. If it's independent, it's not limited. If it's limited, it's not independent. That's not to say some type of advisory board is a bad thing, I think it's a good thing and as I said, made this suggestion to Ken May in writing backin the late 90's. I think anything to pushes members views to the forefront could be good. Actually we could do this on our own if we wanted and even force mailings to members if we were willing to foot the costs of the mailings.
We all signed things and assumed risks and controls including from the state of FL, POS, etc. There is conflicting info in this case as to representation. Some think DVC has gotten too focused on things other than the members and a healthy club which they are legally required to uphold. DVC's has no responsibility in DVD's or Disney's bottom line going forward and it is actually illegal for them to further Disney's best interest to the detriment of the members.
But what's the purpose of the board? Is the board supposed to pass along their own opinions? If so, why are their opinions more important than anyone else's? Or do they supposed to collect the opinions of the members-at-large and pass those along to Disney? If so, why do we need a board in the middle; I can just pass my opinions directly?
It would be to have direct exchange with the BOD. To be sure that issues were being heard at that level and to concentrate those issues. Now we really don't know what's heard and what's not and even how it's presented. They work in a vacuum. It'd also serve as somewhat of an accountability system. Better still would be to have members directly on the BOD. It's called representative government. It would not stop anyone from sending their concerns in the same way they do now.
