Marriott Aruba Ocean Club Owners Being Ripped Off By Marriott - READ IF AN OWNER

marksue said:

I DO NOT FEEL THAT THIS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ECONOMY ALONE BUT ALSO BECAUSE OF SERIOUS OWNER CONCERNS AND LACK OF FAITH BY SOME IN THE MARRIOTT BRAND NAME

WHAT BEGAN AS A SMALL GROUP OF UNHAPPY OWNERS IN ARUBA 8 MONTHS AGO HAS GROWN TO OVER 1000 OF THE 9,000 OWNERS. ADDING THEIR FAMILIES, FRIENDS, AND BUSINESS ASSOCIATES THIS NUMBER CONTINUES TO GROW.

IN ADDITION WITH OVER 400,000 TIMESHARE OWNERS WORLDWIDE, A THREAT OF A BRAND BOYCOTT BY SOME AS WELL AS A NEGATIVE MARRIOTT BLOG VIEWED OVER 48,000 TIMES SINCE OCT. 2008 WITH OVER 900 POSTINGS, WHICH YOUR MVCI STAFF MONITOR - SHOULD GIVE THIS BOARD AND EVERY SHAREHOLDER REASON FOR CONCERN.

ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE ISSUES AT THE ARUBA OCEAN CLUB ARE UNIQUE - I HAVE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH SOME OF THE OTHER 50 TIMESHARE BOARDS AND THEY SEE SOME CONCERNS AMONG THEIR OWNERS OVER MARRIOTT RELATED ISSUES.

Click to expand...

Bingo!!!

I think we now know why this drama is being played out on our humble stage.

I like how Allan utilizes the inference that this has now spread to other non-AOC Marriott owners. Nice.

It is like you guys have literally adopted the "disgruntled customer out in front of the store" strategy.

How fortunate that Marksue started this thread back in Oct and it has got all this traffic. I wonder if Allan knows how many of those posts are from NON-OWNERS? Regardless - nicely played. Kudos to whoever came up with that strategy.

And the threat of a brand boycott? Wow, where is that in this thread? I did not know that we were debating a brand boycott.

Sounds like the sky is falling to me. Until they can prove Marriott hid information about the roof, they are just spinning their wheels. With all the threats etc. did anyone think Marriott wouldn't take a CYA approach at the meeting ? When are there going to be any facts presented instead od speculation

ecwinch said:

Bingo!!!

I think we now know why this drama is being played out on our stage.

I like how Allan utilizes the inference that this will now spread to other non-AOC Marriott owners. Nice.

It is like you guys have literally adopted the disgruntled customer out in front of the store.

How fortitious that Marksue started this thread back in Oct and it has got all this traffic. I wonder if Allan knows how many of those posts are from NON-OWNERS?

And the threat of a brand boycott?

Wow, where is that in this thread?

Click to expand...

Marksue,

This is very interesting. Marriott has again circled the wagons and you are surprised? They are responding to threats from you and the others working with you. Mr. Cohens comments at the Marriott shareholders meeting are also very interesting. It's too bad this had to get so out of hand. As Allan says above it's turning into a Bleak House situation. The only problem will be that you are dealing with Aruba and they may play favorites with a large corporation which employs many Arubans and helps fund their tourism industry (which is a big part of their income).

I will be interested to see where this goes from here. It doesn't look good for either side. As I've said before I hope you can reach an agreement so that you can all move on from this. It does seem that seating a new board, if only to appease all the conspiracy theorists, would be a good thing at this point- though I can't imagine many people would want to be on the board now. I still don't see that a new board could really do anything to change the reality of what's going on down there but if that is what you want I hope you can achieve it. I would also caution against law suits- class action suits typically benefit the legal teams involved and not the plaintiff or defendant. Don't send good money after bad- you've already had an increase in MF's and a special assessment- with lawyers involved it'll only get worse.

Good luck, tlwmkw

marksue said:

Susan,

In the beginning we tried to do this without legal representation in an effort resolve this issue in a professional manner. With Marriott's lack of response and underhanded actions, as occurred at the board meeting, we have now retained legal representation both in Aruba and the US. The attorneys are doing the work on a contingency basis as there are multiple actions under way. There are multiple tracks taking place now and as I am permitted to share what is occurring I will post it. As papers are served and I am given the ok I will share what we are doing. But since Marriott does monitor this board I will not share what is planned until it is executed.

Click to expand...

Well, I hope you've retained legal representation, Marksue, I really do, because I think that your chances of success with your efforts is slim to none without it. But I hope you also understand my skepticism, because other than the "... both in Aruba and ..." this sounds similar to the claims you've made throughout this thread about ongoing contingency arrangements. So I'll ask point-blank here - have you actually hired attorneys who are reviewing the materials, will be recommending a course of action and drafting the necessary paperwork for those actions, and will submit all future correspondence on your behalf?

ecwinch said:

Now I have this visual of Bill Marriott up at 3:00 am, in his bathrobe. Camera fades back and we see he is in his bedroom, room is dark except for the light of his laptop. In the background we see his bed, with his wife sound asleep.

Camera switches to a close-up, illuminated by the off-light of his LCD. A scowl comes over his face and you hear him muttering, "what are those pesky OC owners up to now". Fade to black

Click to expand...

Hmmmm, I don't know. Wouldn't he eventually be as obsessed with upping his post count as everyone else here?

lovearuba said:

... so you followed the rules and got the necessary owners to sign a letter to show the numbers you needed ...

Click to expand...

Point of Order: Marksue signed a letter. Marriott/MVCI/the BOD was not furnished with the actual signatures of the people whose names were included on that list.

Delegation Of Authority.

SueDonJ said:

Wouldn't he eventually be as obsessed with upping his post count as everyone else here?

Click to expand...

For that, he has people.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

marksue said:

May 19, 2009 ... THANK YOU ALLAN COHEN

Click to expand...

I am stunned. And I want to go on record (it must be on record if they are reading, right?) as saying that I don't ever want any member of any of my resorts BOD's to engage in anything that remotely resembles this inflammatory, unsubstantiated, hostile, accusatory tirade. After all of your efforts have been successfully rebuffed by Marriott at every turn by virtue of the protections contained in the contracts, do any of you seriously believe that this is the correct manner in which to proceed?

Mind-boggling. Wow.

ecwinch said:

Yes, it is an implied contract that you can remain a MARRIOTT resort if you do not threaten the corporation whose name is on the door.
I do not know why this would be viewed as unethical.

If it was the Qlaval Ocean Club, I really doubt that you would continue to affiliate with the resort if the owners accused you of 10% of rhetoric that MVCI has been accused of here.

Click to expand...

I do not know why this would be viewed as unethical?
Simply because they don't respect the voting result of the owners...:annoyed:

As for the 2th part, the "Qlaval Ocean Club" would continue to affiliate with the resort as long as it is the wish of a majority of owners.

We are not talking about one person here... we are talking about the democratic voting results of ALL the owners that have been disregard solely for Marriott's interest...

It is the proof that Marriott want their man in place and nobody else to watch over...

Followed all the rules

qlaval said:

We are not talking about one person here... we are talking about the democratic voting results of ALL the owners that have been disregard solely for Marriott's interest...

It is the proof that Marriott want their man in place and nobody else to watch over...

Click to expand...

We followed all the rules, and what did it get us? It got us to the truth about Marriott timeshares and the Marriott brand. It is a money making organization that does not care about the customers it serves. We continue to see Marriott supporters post to this site because of escalating committment to in some way try to protect the beliefs they have in Marriott. You should now remember all the advise you provided to follow the rules, give democracy a try. Democracy had a slap in the face and dictatorship won a small victory. For some of you that continue to support Marriott and berate the owners of the ocean club, take the blinders off as you watch this continue.

qlaval said:

We are not talking about one person here... we are talking about the democratic voting results of ALL the owners that have been disregard solely for Marriott's interest...

It is the proof that Marriott want their man in place and nobody else to watch over...

Click to expand...

Perhaps Marriott acted as they did because they realized that a minority splinter group of unhappy owners was acting in collusion to unseat a board member who is finally taking the proper steps to get the resort back up to par financially and structurally, and their unprecedented but legal maneuvering with the votes they hold is an attempt to combat that collusion in the best overall interest of the resort, all of its owners, and itself as the management company?

I think it's proof that this public campaign to discredit Marriott had one of those unintended consequences that the group has been warned about here by a few critics - maybe if you all had not advertised your dissatisfaction in the combative and accusatory manner in which you did, Marriott would have had no reason to plan for and execute the legal control they exerted over the latest board meeting. Maybe. But probably not - most likely their plans to legally take control of the meeting and the vote were begun the day that they received warning of your minority group's intent by way of that ineffective letter from Marksue.

As others have said, it's Marriott's name on the door. Best to be cautious and correct and informed if you want it to stay that way.

lovearuba said:

We followed all the rules, and what did it get us? It got us to the truth about Marriott timeshares and the Marriott brand. It is a money making organization that does not care about the customers it serves. We continue to see Marriott supporters post to this site because of escalating committment to in some way try to protect the beliefs they have in Marriott. You should now remember all the advise you provided to follow the rules, give democracy a try. Democracy had a slap in the face and dictatorship won a small victory. For some of you that continue to support Marriott and berate the owners of the ocean club, take the blinders off as you watch this continue.

Click to expand...

Are ANY of you willing to acknowledge that the efforts of your group may have had a chance at success if you had only abided by the same bylaws and contractual obligations that you expected Marriott/MVCI/your board to follow?

You make no sense. You want to unseat board members based on the legal protections contained in the bylaws, but you don't want to follow the legal procedure for doing so. You want Marriott/MVCI/your BOD to do whatever you think would be the right thing, with absolutely no regard for what is best for the overall ownership, the resort, and the management company. You want your critics to take your word for it that Marriott is some big bad overlord and you are all victims, while providing no proof that a breach of contract has occurred. You take every concession that Marriott has offered and turn it into a demand for more.

The folks wearing the blinders, it seems to me, are the ones who expect of their timeshare anything more than what is contractually enforceable, and relief from the Court with no regard for the procedure.

It's not the Democrats nor the Republicans that brought us to these tumultous times.It is us the owners of the country,by staying complacent through the years allowing our elected officials to do as they please that got us in this mess of an economy.

Here we are just dealing with one corporation and one BOD.
Why shouldn't anyone be able to ask questions as to what's going on?
Since we are the owners who pay the bills are we asking too much for transparancy?

Wouldn't a taxpayer want to make sure his taxes are not squandered since it is their hard earned income?

After all ,we as of right now, are a free people with a right to ask questions.Should we sit back and allow a governing body to slowly chip away at our rights?

No matter what ,there will always be opposing views to any issues.
But the beauty is that there can be and there should be.

I believe that wether one sides with marksue or not, we need those opposing views to add checks and balances to our investment. The right to disagree is a powerful tool.

SueDonJ said:

Perhaps Marriott acted as they did because they realized that a minority splinter group of unhappy owners was acting in collusion to unseat a board member who is finally taking the proper steps to get the resort back up to par financially and structurally, and their unprecedented but legal maneuvering with the votes they hold is an attempt to combat that collusion in the best overall interest of the resort, all of its owners, and itself as the management company?......

Click to expand...

So you're telling me that a corporation like Marriott can strip us from our democratic rights if it is for our "better" good!?!
Don't you see a very, very dangerous precedent?
"Hey! Stop thinking little owners big Marriott knows what is best for you and will protect you..."

SueDonJ said:

Perhaps Marriott acted as they did because they realized that a minority splinter group of unhappy owners was acting....

Click to expand...

There was a total of 4156 votes for another President and 2112 for the actual one.
I don't see a small minority splinter group action here.... I see a lots of dissatisfaction toward the actual BOD.
And please don't start to try explaining why you think this dissatisfaction shouldn't be unless you want to play Marriott's game.

Unpopular decisions costing someone's seat?
In an election process that has happen a 1000 times before... and nobody came to change the rules because some corporation thought it was unmerited...

It clearly shows that Marriott is ready to plays with the rules to obtain the wanted result and to me that's pretty scary...

Try to imagine your actual government doing the same for your better good because of an "obscure and dangerous group"... it is a nonsense!

SueDonJ said:

Are ANY of you willing to acknowledge that the efforts of your group may have had a chance at success if you had only abided by the same bylaws and contractual obligations that you expected Marriott/MVCI/your board to follow?
The folks wearing the blinders, it seems to me, are the ones who expect of their timeshare anything more than what is contractually enforceable, and relief from the Court with no regard for the procedure.

Click to expand...

What seems to be the result of a botched effort at owner input/control is exactly what had been predicted. By going in too strong with declarations of wrong doing, threats of legal actions, mishandled and incorrect attempts to call a special meeting and more Marriott predictably responded by taking steps to protect themselves and the majority of, so far, silent owners at the resort. That doesn't mean the original group doesn't have a legitimate gripe or that everything Marriott / Management / various Boards did was / will be correct but that any chance of a simple, sit down negotiated resolution is most likely long gone.

Now both sides will have to follow the exact procedures, time lines, rules and dot every "i". It will most likely require expensive legal representation which will cost owners on both sides. They will pay for the Associations share through the fees AND those that wish to continue to challenge the current regime will pay again to fund that work. There is little or no chance that Marriott will be willing to do things informally as the risk of lawsuit would be too great.

Too late for an inexpensive compromise so now we'll see how far the dissident group is willing to go (and how they can pay for it) and what if any changes they can force to happen. In my view they will now end up costing the Association unnecessary expense and are unlikely to find savings or get more reimbursement from Marriott. In fact they may end up forcing Marriott out if they insist on making this a battle. The worst outcome for both sides it seems to me. Let this be a lesson on how NOT to handle things for those owners / Boards who may have issues with their resort management. Careful research, measured and constructive input and working within the prescribed procedures is likely to get you far more than wild accusations, threats of legal actions and half-baked efforts at short circuiting Board actions. These are big companies, serious operations (as in BIG money) and they must be treated with respect. Handled correctly owners can and should be the controlling voices through their elected Board. By turning a situation into an all out battle the advantage moves to the better funded group. In this case, as at most resorts, that is NOT the individual buyers.

Good luck to all and I hope this can still be settled as inexpensively as possible.

qlaval said:

So you're telling me that a corporation like Marriott can strip us from our democratic rights if it is for our "better" good!?!
Don't you see a very, very dangerous precedent?
"Hey! Stop thinking little owners big Marriott knows what is best for you and will protect you..."



There was a total of 4156 votes for another President and 2112 for the actual one.
I don't see a small minority splinter group action here.... I see a lots of dissatisfaction toward the actual BOD.
And please don't start to try explaining why you think this dissatisfaction shouldn't be unless you want to play Marriott's game.

Unpopular decisions costing someone's seat?
In an election process that has happen a 1000 times before... and nobody came to change the rules because some corporation thought it was unmerited...

It clearly shows that Marriott is ready to plays with the rules to obtain the wanted result and to me that's pretty scary...

Try to imagine your actual government doing the same for your better good because of an "obscure and dangerous group"... it is a nonsense!

Click to expand...

Your rights were not stripped - you and your group were entitled to vote and you did. The other AOC owners were entitled to vote and chose for themselves whether or not they would - the numbers indicate that some abstained. But Marriott also was entitled to vote the shares it holds as the management company, and their representatives did so in what they believe is the best interest of all of the owners as well as the company. The final tally resulted in a board make-up that your minority group opposes but will have to accept unless you're willing to take correct legal action.

I suppose you could call that democracy at work, although I don't understand why there is even a call for democracy here. The process is defined and stipulated in your bylaws and contractual documents - I don't expect any other influence to come into play. Nothing about how the meeting or the vote transpired screams Big Brother or impropriety to me. What it clearly shows me is that Marriott will exert its rights whenever and wherever it believes that its interests are threatened. As an MVCI owner, those interests are mine and I want Marriott to protect them.

What my government does or doesn't do isn't relevant here.

I think John's previous post is a pretty good summation of why non-Ocean Club owners are so involved in this issue.

I unequivocally support and defend your right to due process in this "crusade".

What I do not support is the tactics and methods that have been used to solicit support from your fellow owners. It has been a deliberate campaign of half-truths, innuendo, and slander designed to capitalize on the emotions created by a necessary assessment in difficult economic times. You are simply feeding the fears of the majority. They are not supporting this crusade on the basis of a rational plan to address the pain they are feeling, for you know that nothing can be done to achieve that goal.

I stand by my original prediction. If your faction obtains power at the Ocean Club, I need to exchange into there real soon. For I doubt I will have that option much longer.

In the interim ,the course you are on will have the exact opposite affect on those whose support you claim. They will see their ownership cost increase as the BOD is forced to fend off this ill-advised attempt to rewrite history.

And at some point, I think we have to recognize that this "firestorm" for owners rights, is really a "crusade" to extract a pound of flesh for what happened to one well-intentioned former BOD President. Given his propensity for bending the truth, I fully understand why he no longer has his position.

You know, I want to say again that as much as my pragmatic approach may leave the impression that I am totally against the cause and the efforts of this group of AOC owners, that's not entirely the case. I do have empathy for the situation you all find yourselves in, and can completely understand the frustration that you're feeling as you try to work out whether or not your Marriott timeshare ownership is worth the price anymore. I love my timeshares and don't ever want to reach a point where they offer more grief than enjoyment.

But it is much easier for me than it is for you to look at the issues at AOC from all angles because I am not directly affected. I have tried here to limit my criticisms to only the actions, not the people performing them, and I have tried to explain why I believe differently than you do that Marriott has not acted incorrectly. If I haven't been successful and any of you feel personally insulted, I am sincerely sorry.

timeos, ecwinch, and suedonj are all correct. To me this feels like watching a car accident happening and you are helpless to do anything to stop it- the only problem is that the owners are in a tiny smart-car and they are about to have a head-on collision with the 18-wheeler that is Marriott/MVCI, and that 18 wheeler is full of high priced corporate lawyers. There doesn't seem to be any good outcome for anyone in this.

At least when the renovation is done the resort will be even better than it already is and you will be able to see where your MF's are going- I don't know if that will make you feel any better or not. To my mind you should be fighting to make sure that budgets are appropriate from here on so that you are not faced with further special assessments and large hikes in MF's in the future. That seems more important than unseating the board. I see a disconnect in the fact that Allan Cohen was the president of your board when the budget was obviously mismanaged/underfunded and yet you have nothing but good to say about him. Why did he not ensure that appropriate reserves were maintained to prevent the current shock of the cost of renovation? That is his fiduciary responsibility as president of the board. Maybe I'm onto something here- another conspiracy headed by Allan who is trying to deflect blame from himself by creating a smokescreen that blames Marriott (by the way I do not meant that seriously so don't get upset with me for saying it- but it is about as credible as some of the other allegations that have been made on this thread).

Those of us non-owners who question all this don't "love" Marriott- we are just realistic in our expectations about what to expect from them. Marriott is a large, capitalist company looking to make profits- that is the bottom line and that is their fiduciary responsibility to the share-holders. They owe nothing to the TS owners except for the right to stay a week a year in one of their TS units.

Going into war with a slingshot is never a good idea. The few owners that backed this backed the wrong person to lead this fight, thats for sure.

tlwmkw said:

timeos, ecwinch, and suedonj are all correct. To me this feels like watching a car accident happening and you are helpless to do anything to stop it- the only problem is that the owners are in a tiny smart-car and they are about to have a head-on collision with the 18-wheeler that is Marriott/MVCI, and that 18 wheeler is full of high priced corporate lawyers. There doesn't seem to be any good outcome for anyone in this.

At least when the renovation is done the resort will be even better than it already is and you will be able to see where your MF's are going- I don't know if that will make you feel any better or not. To my mind you should be fighting to make sure that budgets are appropriate from here on so that you are not faced with further special assessments and large hikes in MF's in the future. That seems more important than unseating the board. I see a disconnect in the fact that Allan Cohen was the president of your board when the budget was obviously mismanaged/underfunded and yet you have nothing but good to say about him. Why did he not ensure that appropriate reserves were maintained to prevent the current shock of the cost of renovation? That is his fiduciary responsibility as president of the board. Maybe I'm onto something here- another conspiracy headed by Allan who is trying to deflect blame from himself by creating a smokescreen that blames Marriott (by the way I do not meant that seriously so don't get upset with me for saying it- but it is about as credible as some of the other allegations that have been made on this thread).

Those of us non-owners who question all this don't "love" Marriott- we are just realistic in our expectations about what to expect from them. Marriott is a large, capitalist company looking to make profits- that is the bottom line and that is their fiduciary responsibility to the share-holders. They owe nothing to the TS owners except for the right to stay a week a year in one of their TS units.

Click to expand...

ecwinch said:

Now I have this visual of Bill Marriott up at 3:00 am, in his bathrobe. Camera fades back and we see he is in his bedroom, room is dark except for the light of his laptop. In the background we see his bed, with his wife sound asleep.

Camera switches to a close-up, illuminated by the off-light of his LCD. A scowl comes over his face and you hear him muttering, "what are those pesky OC owners up to now". Fade to black

Click to expand...

Now I have a visual.
The smart car driven by non other than Bruce Willis is heading straight for the 18 wheeler.
At the last minute, he maneuvers the car under the truck sideways and comes out the other side without a scratch.
The 18 wheeler continues at full throttle. A big bang is heard. Fade to black.

I love it.

Thought we need a humor break. OK?

modoaruba,

I hope it works out that way for the owners.

tlwmkw

qlaval said:

I do not know why this would be viewed as unethical?
Simply because they don't respect the voting result of the owners...:annoyed:

Click to expand...

lovearuba said:

We followed all the rules, and what did it get us? It got us to the truth about Marriott timeshares and the Marriott brand. It is a money making organization that does not care about the customers it serves. We continue to see Marriott supporters post to this site because of escalating committment to in some way try to protect the beliefs they have in Marriott. You should now remember all the advise you provided to follow the rules, give democracy a try. Democracy had a slap in the face and dictatorship won a small victory. For some of you that continue to support Marriott and berate the owners of the ocean club, take the blinders off as you watch this continue.

Click to expand...

As I said above, it is not inappropriate for Marriott to vote the units they own, even if they have not done so in the past. It is not an affront to the democratic process, quite the reverse. As I stated previously, this was predictable and the only real choices were to jump at the compromise or to file legal action, actually both would likely have been the best choice if possible. Of course legal action is still an option if those involved deem appropriate.

SueDonJ said:

Your rights were not stripped - you and your group were entitled to vote and you did. The other AOC owners were entitled to vote and chose for themselves whether or not they would - the numbers indicate that some abstained. But Marriott also was entitled to vote the shares it holds as the management company, and their representatives did so in what they believe is the best interest of all of the owners as well as the company. The final tally resulted in a board make-up that your minority group opposes but will have to accept unless you're willing to take correct legal action.

I suppose you could call that democracy at work, although I don't understand why there is even a call for democracy here. The process is defined and stipulated in your bylaws and contractual documents - I don't expect any other influence to come into play. Nothing about how the meeting or the vote transpired screams Big Brother or impropriety to me. What it clearly shows me is that Marriott will exert its rights whenever and wherever it believes that its interests are threatened. As an MVCI owner, those interests are mine and I want Marriott to protect them.

What my government does or doesn't do isn't relevant here.

Click to expand...

First you are making false assumptions, I'm NOT a member of any group.
Because I have some common concerns with other owners on some points doesn't make me a member of anything.

With your comments you're are acting like a loose canon who's firing on anything that's not a 100% behind whatever Marriott is doing.
Sorry I but I don't share your blindness.
When Marriott back the motto that the end justify the means I will not hesitate to say NO it don't.

The running candidates for the elections were all chosen jointly by Marriott and Frank Knox BOD.
I repeat ONLY pre approved Marriott candidates were listed!
(Not a single member on your "conspirator group" there...)

So tell me why the owners ARE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO DECIDE which one.
Was it because Marriott allowed 3 bad and one good candidate for this election?
Of course not! Marriott had clear preferences.
They were only willing to concede the appearance of democracy not the results that comes with it....
As an owner it is very troublesome that the man who was chosen by the MAJORITY of owners is now for the first time chosen by MVCI himself instead.

Remember that this is the person who is supposed to represent my best interests when negotiating with Marriott!
You can't hardly have a better example of a conflict of interest...

"...As an MVCI owner, those interests are mine and I want Marriott to protect them..."
Wrong again as this proves that Marriott only protect their own interest not yours.
And those interests are not necessarily the same for the owners.

And if you want to add to this post that Marriott is always doing the right thing....
Maybe but only when it is for their own interest surely not ours...