UPDATE: In a e-mail from the Board regarding a question about this by-law amendment, I received the following information:
By Law Amendment
The issue related to the bylaw amendment is strictly related to protecting the owner’s personal information. It is not an issue related to cost of the mailing. The only venue the owners have today to contact other WorldMark owners is through a direct mail distribution as the membership register only includes owners name and address. That is all that is provided for per the governing documents. The proposed bylaw amendment does not change that process in any way except that instead of distributing personal information directly to an owner the Board would like to adopt the language consistent with California law that says a reasonable alternative can be provided. Using a third party mail house protects the owners’ privacy and would cost the requesting owner no more than mailing the materials directly themselves (and in fact, this would potentially save the owner money with the mail house getting a reduced postage rate using presorted rates).
Here is the statement the WorldMark Board has offered in support of this proposal:
General statement: The WorldMark Board of Directors is committed to protecting Owners’ privacy. The Club’s Bylaws were developed in 1989, long before the prevalence of identity theft and the damage that can be suffered through release of personal information. Just as legislators have worked diligently to develop effective privacy laws, the WorldMark Board of Directors has developed privacy language to add to the WorldMark Bylaws to best protect Owner’s private information.
THE WORLDMARK BOARD OF DIRECTORS ENCOURAGES YOU TO VOTE FOR THE PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENT TO FURTHER PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY.
A FOR vote will express your desire to protect your personal information, while not inhibiting Owner’s rights to communicate with other Owners.
Proposal 1 has been prompted by litigation now pending in the California Court of Appeals. In that litigation, WorldMark sought to prevent the disclosure to an owner of the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of all WorldMark members (now exceeding 260,000), instead offering the reasonable alternative of facilitating an owner mailing through an independent mail house, as described in the amended language below.
Proposal 1 seeks to revise WorldMark’s Bylaw so it conforms with governing California law, which expressly authorizes a corporation to provide a reasonable alternative to simply turning over member identities to an owner who requests them. (Cal. Corp. Code § 8330) Once personal information is disclosed, it cannot be protected from further disclosure. The Bylaw revision described in Proposal 1 would align WorldMark’s procedures with California law, share costs with an owner who seeks to communicate with other owners (which is more than California law requires), and continues to protect private owner contact information from disclosure to any member who asks for it. Proposal 1 thus balances the needs of owners who want to communicate with other owners and the interests of owners who desire to protect their privacy.
Counter Argument against update:
“Using a third party mail house protects the owners’ privacy and would cost the requesting owner no more than mailing the materials directly themselves (and in fact, this would potentially save the owner money with the mail house getting a reduced postage rate using presorted rates).”
Is it really cheaper to pay a an outside company a handling and printing fee on top of postage? This is a ridiculous argument. Standard postage is 42 cents and the mailing house is roughly 60 cents per piece. The current practice already requires this and no way saves owners money. The $130,000 calculations discussed already assumes that cost. An email is FREE and that is what they are trying to avoid. This by-law is not about protecting owners privacy or saving people money. It is about legitimizing a practice, found unlawful by the courts, into our bylaws designed to make communication so expensive as to stop it.
Furthermore, California Law is not silent on the issue of “Protection of Owner’s Privacy”.
Civil Code §1365.2. Inspection of Books and Records section A 1 (I) iii says:
“A member of the association may opt out of the sharing of his or her name, property address, and mailing address by notifying the association in writing that he or she prefers to be contacted via the alternative process described in subdivision (c) of Section 8330 of the Corporations Code. This opt-out shall remain in effect until changed by the member.”
The Worldmark Board of directors would have saved a lot of legal fees if they just sent out an “Opt Out” for to all owners and gave owners a reasonable choice to protect their identity.
Clearly the Board is giving the owners no choice, and instead is forcing an “Opt Out” policy. This civil code section exists to give owners a choice. The Board is not protecting the owners; it rather is denying the owners their civil rights under this section.