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

If you start to tape things you have to do it forever and completely.

Dean said:

I didn't think they'd allow taping. A Parliamentarian's job is simply to run a meeting, not perform accounting functions. If I were MVCI, I would not let a magazine be distributed with an add negative to MVCI. I think the issues you list were predictable and how most companies would handle such situations.
Unless you can do so legally, I doubt that's the case. IMO you have one chance at this going forward and that's in the courts ASAP but with all the documentation of your concerns and accusations that you can muster. Also, IMO, must of the opportunity was lost on the front side.

Click to expand...

We have been advised by our attorneys, numerous times, that taping (audio or video) meetings is opening a potential legal mess. Once you allow it you can be required to do it, in full, for ever meeting and risk lawsuits if it isn't doen, gets lost, isn't easily viewed/heard, etc etc. Another possible nightmare most Boards/Associations wouldn't want to expose themselves to. We live in an extremely litigious society and avoiding possible suits is nearly as important as simply conducting proper business in legal fashion. It's a shame but thats the way it is. This very thread has examples of why on both the owners and corporate sides.

You wont get this...

marksue said:

As one of the world renown Parliamentarian experts you state on your web site noted above - you assist organizations, improving effectiveness and building strong teams. Unfortunately, what I witnessed at Saturdays special meeting of the Marriott Aruba Ocean club was far from that. I would appreciate if you could inform the owners (who I understand you were hired as a neutral party) on how we can appeal a decision of the Board and or the Parliamentarians ruling if we see an error.

At yesterday's meeting several of the points noted by the Board/MVCI and or their legal representatives were just not factual. How can an owner dispute this and find out the truth? W#e should have an opportunity to prove this. Do we have to wait for the annual meeting or can something be done now?

In the future, as the ruling authority - everyone in the room should be informed about the process. As you note on your card - there is an appeal process. What is that and should owners have been informed about this at the meeting.

Also, at the May annual meeting questionable procedures occurred. Below is the election letter and questions that I mentioned to you at the meeting. As parliamentarian, I question whether some procedural errors have been made as noted by this election judge.


FROM THE MAY MEETING


As an election judge at the Annual Meeting held on May 15, 2009, I noticed that your draft minutes and the letter from Dirk to Owners regarding Marriott’s justification for voting and the exact vote count for the election for Board members seem to be misleading and request further clarification and correction.



… Other examples of MVCI exercising its voting rights at Aruba Ocean Club include the 2003 Annual Meeting. While MVCI has not always exercised its voting rights at Aruba Ocean Club or its other timeshare resorts, it reserves the right to do so in its discretion. ..”


This statement is misleading because Marriott has never used their votes for an Owners Board candidate since the Board became an Owners Board. To clarify, the 2003 election noted by Dirk, was an election by a developers controlled Board.


This was the only time Marriott votes were cast for an Owner candidate and was again when developer candidates controlled the Board. These two situations differ significantly. You and other MVCI executives have openly expressed your approval of having a hands off approach related to Board Owner elections. I am not questioning Marriott’s right to vote their shares; I am questioning what I feel is an attempt to mislead the Owners regarding your history and tactics.


I would greatly appreciate you providing Owners and myself with a better understanding of the Board election results as reported in your correspondence and on the web site by addressing the following questions:


1. If you are correct that fewer than 7000 votes were cast prior to the meeting, why were not the Owner election judges aware of this during the meeting? Assuming that the election judges (including myself) counted the votes and certified them why were these numbers not shared or reported during the meeting?


You can check with your Parliamentarian that according to Robert’s rules the election results were announced as certified at the meeting by Inspector of Election, Scott Derrickson, who gave the Tellers Report. These figures as noted below are different than those you are stating now. Allowing additional votes and proxies after the meeting announcement raises the question of an invalid election.


2. Since each Owner had up to 2 votes per week to cast for up to 2 A members – is it possible that you doubled counted some of the votes? These ballot numbers were not reported to or certified by the Owner election judges at the meeting and only reported after the meeting by the Marriott team.


3. Mr. Cohen had Limited proxies for 980 shares in the A-Member election and 1,070 shares in the B-Member election at the meeting. Under what column were these tallied?


Votes Votes
by During
Limited Meeting
Proxy Received Received



It seems almost statistically impossible that Frank Knox received the exact same amount under both columns? Any rational person would think this is suspect. Is the number 2,112 correct for both? Are the election ballots available for audit and review by Owners? If this is not possible because the ballots have been destroyed, please inform us.



5. Please inform us as to who hired Morrow & Company, the Parliamentarian and if they were paid for by the Association, if so how much did they cost the Owners? Since the Parliamentarian was not used at the Surf club annual meeting just weeks after the AOC’s, or any other of your 50+ Vacation Clubs do you have plans to retain them for next year’s AOC annual meeting.


6. Would you please explain each of these numbers and how they are obtained?


“The majority of the voting interest present, which is the number needed to take action at this meeting, is 3,724, The total voting interests for this meeting are 23,954 and the majority of the total voting interests are 11,978. If you take the total units times 51 wks times 2 plus 1500 this = 23,736 not 23954”



7. You state that Mr. Knox had the majority support of Owners prior to the Meeting and imply that your votes only supported the Owners, if this is the case why did you not support Mr. Andrew Bury who according to your report had the second highest vote from Owners going into the Annual Meeting? Remember all nominated candidates were chosen by Marriott and the Board.



8. Did anyone other than Marriott verify that at the time of the election MVCI had title and paid Owners in full for the Ownership of 115 units?



I am requesting a formal written response to these questions and look forward to hearing from you. I think a clear understanding will be helpful for all Owners in the future. Thank you,

Click to expand...

We all want explanations but we won't get them. There was a letter posted to our website from an election judge that was displeased with the process, Marriott never addressed it. What kind of company goes to the newspaper and threatens them because of an ad by another party? Who can defend that one?:ignore:

lovearuba said:

What kind of company goes to the newspaper and threatens them because of an ad by another party? Who can defend that one?:ignore:

Click to expand...

Magazines, newspapers, etc. are supported by their advertisers. Frequently ads for only one brand are seen because they've made a deal to exclude competitor's ads. Threatening to pull their ads or not distribute their magazine is likely more commonplace than realized and is not reflective of any hidden agenda; it is likely more of a common business practice than you realize.

cruisin- due to its physical location, I doubt Marriott is about to abandon this property any time soon. I think the risk of them getting fed up would be far greater if it wasn't sandwiched between other prime real estate there (the Stellaris Hotel and the Surf Club). With them in the beginning stages of a Ritz on the other side of the hotel, they are intent on continuing their monopoly on that end of Palm Beach.

Marksue,

When I mentioned taping/videoing the meeting I meant having a video transcript done (by that I mean professionally done by a non-biased reporting service) which many boards do allow. This can be quite expensive but if your group offered to pay for it then the board there might allow it. Timeos2 is correct that once this is begun it has to be done consistently and there has to be approval of the video by those in attendance (just like minutes)- though you can sign off on it without actually watching the whole thing again- however it can be done as a one off in certain circumstances with permission of all involved. If you wanted to do this it would have taken some organization ahead of time and not just at the last minute. I did not mean just asking if you can use your personal video camera to tape the meeting- that would not be allowed.

As far as Frank Knox's excuse for not taping it does sound a little fishy but there could be some truth to it. When I was in college there was a girl from a famous/wealthy family in the same dorm and she had constant security and no one was allowed to reveal her class schedules or travel plans to others. That was an unusual exception though and I can't really imagine that Mr. Knox is in that same situation bacause if he were then I doubt he would be staying at a timeshare in Aruba which doesn't appear to have great security. He probably just came up with a lame excuse to prevent taping. A better answer would be "That isn't allowed for x,y,z reason" and not the rather lame kidnapping excuse.

This situation is just going from bad to worse- I don't see how anyone is ever going to be happy with any resolution.

tlwmkw

lovearuba said:

We all want explanations but we won't get them.

Click to expand...

No, you won't, not unless your questions are asked according to the processes and procedures that are set forth in the ownership documents, and/or comply with the rules established by the legal systems from which you're trying to get relief. Throughout this 15-month-plus ordeal, it appears that many of the "concerned owners" have consistently ignored these requirements until Marriott et al has forced you to acknowledge them. Be proactive for a change! Hire and work with a competent attorney to figure out exactly what you can and cannot expect for relief, and exactly how you can go about getting it. Then leave all the "Marriott is a terrible company and isn't treating us very nicely" fluff behind and focus your energies on getting what is rightfully yours. Don't expect anything more and you won't be needlessly frustrated. More importantly, you won't be engaging in useless actions that give you no relief, but do require your BOD and management company to mount a legal defense that is costing every MAOC owner.

[edited to add:] That's an important point to acknowledge, I think, that the actions of this minority ownership group are costing every MAOC owner additional fees (which is a statement of fact because Marriott et al confirmed it in a written communication to all owners, and their statement has not been successfully challenged nor does it appear that it can be based on the opinions of timeshare-savvy owners here.) You say that you "all want explanations" but you're speaking only for the "concerned owners," aren't you? It's apparent that for some owners the myriad explanations given by Marriott et al are sufficient, or at least that those owners are not driven as you are by a perceived lack of explanations from Marriott. Is the "concerned owners" group also concerned with the additional costs they've foisted on all MAOC owners?

lovearuba said:

There was a letter posted to our website from an election judge that was displeased with the process, Marriott never addressed it.

Click to expand...

Presumably the documents as well as established law dictate the rules for votes to be tallied and certified, and also the procedures which an election judge must follow to contest a result. If those rules and procedures are not followed, Marriott et al is not required to respond to any inquiries about the voting results. It's for certain that posting a letter to your website would not satisfy such rules or requirements, but I'm thinking that was not the election judge's only notice of contest (at least I hope it wasn't.) Did his/her formal notice of contest satisfy the rules and requirements?

lovearuba said:

What kind of company goes to the newspaper and threatens them because of an ad by another party? Who can defend that one?:ignore:

Click to expand...

It's simple - it doesn't need a defense if it's not an illegal action. If the newspaper allowed the ad to be removed, which it has the right to do as a private business, your problem is with the editor. Prove to the editor that your business is as important as Marriott's and your ad will be allowed.

Marksue,

As an owner at the Ocean Club I am interested in hearing how the voting went. Do you have the final tally? From your posts it sounds like you were at the meeting. How many owners were present?

Also how do the remodeled rooms look? The pictures look awesome on the Ocean Club website.

Thanks.

Marksue,

How did the vote go? What exactly did the proposal read? I haven't been following this thread quite as closely and I'm afraid I'm a little behind on this.

On another note I do wonder how you think Marriott is able to exert such influence over the current board members? Surely Allan Cohen can give us some information about this since he was on the board for so long. I honestly don't understand how you can say they are puppets- unless MVCI has some special, secret ability to control minds I don't see how they can possibly know who will be favorable to them prior to the election. This is a serious question even if it sounds flippant.

thanks, tlwmkw

I am also wondering how the vote went since that was the purpose of the meeting. It should be simple, either our information will be released to people that request it or it will not be released. Does anyone know the answer to the only item in question at the meeting?

This is the information that was mailed to the owners and is also available on MAOC's page at my-vacationclub.com. This is the exact wording of the proposal:

1. Proposed Amendment to Bylaws

The proposed Bylaw Amendment, if adopted, would provide for the addition of individual Members' home postal mailing address and electronic mailing address in the Association's Shareholder Register, which is available for inspection upon request.

The proposed amendment is below. New words are underlined, and words to be deleted are lined through.

ARTICLE XV.

SHAREHOLDER REGISTER​

The ownership of a Membership Interest or Share is evidenced by writing the name of the Member in the Shareholder Register. The Association shall maintain the Shareholder Register in accordance with Aruban law. At a minimum, such Shareholder Register shall contain the name( and local ), home postal mailing address and electronic mailing address of each Member, the number of Shares, the type of share (A-Shares or B-Shares), the name of any lender, and the date of issue. Each Member shall file with the Association, a copy of any lien or encumbrance or pledge on or of the Member's Membership Interest, including any release, satisfaction or termination of same, as well as any other information or forms requested by the Board, in its sole discretion, to be filed with the Association.

Click to expand...

(*Note that the section I parenthesized - " and local " - is the section that is lined through in the original. That function didn't transfer here with copy/paste.)

It's a little bit surprising that owners haven't been notified yet of the vote results, but only a little because the meeting was held on the weekend and yesterday was a holiday. I would think, though, that an owner could contact Corey Guest or even their own Owner Services reps to find out the results.

Anybody ever read the bylaws prior to buying?
Anybody ever read the bylaws and fully understood them?
Anybody ever hire a lawyer to read them prior to buying?
If so they are a priviledged minority who probably did not buy.

This whole thing serves as a lesson to all of us.
As Sue points out,no matter what the concerned owners group does or for that matter,what any owner does,there is a piece of the bylaws that we all signed off on that says TOO BAD.That seems to be HER opinion.

Regardless of the final tally at the meeting,regardless of the ad in the paper pulled,regardless of the board's alienation of the concerned owners,TUG has seen in the last few days hundreds of views of this thread with many concerned posts.

Did MVCI shoot themselves in the foot for allowing such nagative advertisement?

Anyone thinking of buying a TS better be able to read and understand the bylaws.If not-buyer beware.

Respectfully, Modo, I would say that anybody who is thinking about buying a timeshare (thinking about any purchase at all that requires a contract commitment as well as what could be a substantial outlay of money, really) should have at least a cursory knowledge of what that purchase will mean. I agree that it's certainly unreasonable to expect that any new owner will have in advance full knowledge of the bylaws and other governing documents, or even that s/he'll acquire it prior to the expiration of any rescission period, sure, especially if the purchase is made on the external resale market because the governing documents may not be included in the paperwork. But it's not at all unreasonable to expect new owners to realize that there will be requirements forced upon and protections afforded to every party to the contract. That's only basic business logic.

Taken a step further, I'll repeat what I've said here before. No timeshare owner has the right to demand from a timeshare developer or management company anything that is not the owner's right by virtue of the contracts; and, no timeshare owner should expect that s/he can engage such a company in any legal battle, and be successful, without benefit of competent legal counsel to aid in acquiring full knowledge of those governing documents.

One thing - it's not my opinion at all that Marriott et al has come out of this MAOC situation with a bad reputation. I know that doesn't shock you because you think I'm an apologist who would never be able to see wrong in anything they do, but truthfully that's not the case. It's just that I haven't seen any wrongdoing here, based on the glut of information that has been related in this thread as well as what's been made available on my-vacationclub.com and other official websites. As an MVCI owner and Marriott shareholder, I am satisfied that the company has not engaged in any illegalities throughout these processes, and that they've taken the proper proactive and defensive moves to protect shareholder interests. That's really all I expect from the officers of any company with which I do business, and I consider the resorts' BODs and GMs as well as MVCI's legal department to be company officers of a sort.

modoaruba said:

Anybody ever read the bylaws prior to buying?
Anybody ever read the bylaws and fully understood them?
Anybody ever hire a lawyer to read them prior to buying?
If so they are a priviledged minority who probably did not buy.

This whole thing serves as a lesson to all of us.
As Sue points out,no matter what the concerned owners group does or for that matter,what any owner does,there is a piece of the bylaws that we all signed off on that says TOO BAD.That seems to be HER opinion.

Regardless of the final tally at the meeting,regardless of the ad in the paper pulled,regardless of the board's alienation of the concerned owners,TUG has seen in the last few days hundreds of views of this thread with many concerned posts.

Did MVCI shoot themselves in the foot for allowing such nagative advertisement?

Anyone thinking of buying a TS better be able to read and understand the bylaws.If not-buyer beware.

Click to expand...

How else would you suggest any purchase would work that involves an HOA or a common-interest in property?

Anytime you own an interest in a property that is shared with other parties, it is important that you understand your respective rights and obligations. It is not like buying something that you have sole ownership and control of.

If you buy a house in a community with a mandatory HOA you have the same situation.

SueDonJ said:

Respectfully, Modo, I would say that anybody who is thinking about buying a timeshare (thinking about any purchase at all that requires a contract commitment as well as what could be a substantial outlay of money, really) should have at least a cursory knowledge of what that purchase will mean. I agree that it's certainly unreasonable to expect that any new owner will have in advance full knowledge of the bylaws and other governing documents, or even that s/he'll acquire it prior to the expiration of any rescission period, sure, especially if the purchase is made on the external resale market because the governing documents may not be included in the paperwork. But it's not at all unreasonable to expect new owners to realize that there will be requirements forced upon and protections afforded to every party to the contract. That's only basic business logic.

Taken a step further, I'll repeat what I've said here before. No timeshare owner has the right to demand from a timeshare developer or management company anything that is not the owner's right by virtue of the contracts; and, no timeshare owner should expect that s/he can engage such a company in any legal battle, and be successful, without benefit of competent legal counsel to aid in acquiring full knowledge of those governing documents.

One thing - it's not my opinion at all that Marriott et al has come out of this MAOC situation with a bad reputation. I know that doesn't shock you because you think I'm an apologist who would never be able to see wrong in anything they do, but truthfully that's not the case. It's just that I haven't seen any wrongdoing here, based on the glut of information that has been related in this thread as well as what's been made available on my-vacationclub.com and other official websites. As an MVCI owner and Marriott shareholder, I am satisfied that the company has not engaged in any illegalities throughout these processes, and that they've taken the proper proactive and defensive moves to protect shareholder interests. That's really all I expect from the officers of any company with which I do business, and I consider the resorts' BODs and GMs as well as MVCI's legal department to be company officers of a sort.

Click to expand...

Sue,do I understand that you are a Marriott shareholder?
If so, NOW I understand YOUR motive.
Whew,for a second I really thought you believe in what you state.

Ha, clever Modo.

But I do believe what I wrote, and not because of being a piddling shareholder. Why do you have such difficulty believing that what I've said repeatedly here about what I expect and want as an MVCI owner is the simple truth? Namely that if I was an owner at MAOC, I would not join the efforts of this "concerned owners" group because it appears to me that the results you seek are contrary to the standards of a Marriott-managed resort. And I LIKE my Marriott resorts!

SueDonJ said:

Ha, clever Modo.

But I do believe what I wrote, and not because of being a piddling shareholder. Why do you have such difficulty believing that what I've said repeatedly here about what I expect and want as an MVCI owner is the simple truth? Namely that if I was an owner at MAOC, I would not join the efforts of this "concerned owners" group because it appears to me that the results you seek are contrary to the standards of a Marriott-managed resort. And I LIKE my Marriott resorts!

Click to expand...

With due respect,your colors are showing.I rest my case.

Okay, well, there's not much I can say to defend against the old "colors showing" offense. So, moving on, as long as you're visiting the thread ...

Will you confirm that the bylaw amendment didn't pass in Saturday's vote? The question's been asked here a few times from owners and non-owners alike, but it appears that any of you who do have knowledge of the result are deliberately ignoring the question. Is there now a pact to withhold info from this thread? (Although anybody could easily guess that it didn't pass, because if it had the news would have been plastered here in bold gigantic italic red type.)

I,personally do not know the result.
At this point it seems moot to me.
For now I see what we are up against.
It is not so much as to be right or wrong,but a respect that is ignored to those questioning the status quo.
As you can see with just OUR correspondence,we do not agree much of the time but we do have an open and respectful debate.If only MVCI and the concerned owners can have such debate it would speak volumes.
Don't you agree?

Well this is a pickle because generally I do agree with you that respectful debate and disagreement is preferable to nasty dragdown insulting bashfests that can only lead to bad things. Heck, respectful debate is healthy in every informal relationship.

Which leads me to where I would disagree with the notion that MVCI and its timeshare owners should be able to respectfully debate each other outside the constraints of the contracts between them. The relationship between Marriott and the owners is not an informal relationship by any stretch of the imagination. Under normal circumstances I would be surprised if any company made a conscious choice to forego the contract terms and deal with contracted parties on an informal basis. Under extreme circumstances, such as the one in this situation where the company was threatened with a lawsuit almost from the getgo, it would sincerely shock me.

You have this barrier that you cannot cross.
This situation has gotten to the point that the rules,as you see them, stand in the way of seeking a solution.
Help me understand why a company like MVCI,knowing that at least a 1,000 owners having concerns are alienated and not given the respect of debate,would rather contribute to the further gather of dissention amongst more owners.
Owners have gotten hit hard in the wallet which is always the wake up call.
They do not want to hear that this was the cause of the prior board but rather what is THIS board going to do for us.
A good starting point is to address the issues presented by the concerns by open debate.
Any further alienation,wether it be by bylaws or not,would be detrimental to what ever can be salvaged at this juncture.

We look at so many of the individual issues here differently, Modo, and this is only a few examples:

I don't agree that the rules stand in the way of a solution. I do think, though, that the rules need to be followed while working out a solution. But one that's mutually beneficial, not one that satisfies only this minority ownership group.

I also don't agree that dissent among owners is reason enough for Marriott to bypass the rules when dealing with the "concerned owners." One reason that Marriott may not be giving your 1,000+ group the attention or importance you think you deserve, is that Marriott has however many other owners whose attention and importance is equally deserving. They cannot be expected to satisfy the demands of this group to the detriment of the majority MAOC ownership and the overall MVCI ownership, especially if the demands of the group do not satisfy or are contrary to the provisions of the governing docs.

I think that one solution which the "concerned owners" group finds optimal - that of a "transparent" MAOC BOD whose members will be accessible to owners through private contact, and whose actions/decisions will be taken with the benefit of unrestrained owner input - is not realistic based on both the standard of a Marriott-managed resort and established BOD/HOA practices.

It's important that both the "concerned owners" group and Marriott et al need to be reasonable in dealing with each other. From where I sit, reviewing all of the info in this thread and the official notices on various Marriott-related websites, Marriott has responded (in a manner consistent with their standard business practices) to the concerns and complaints generated by members of the group, and they've made financial concessions. Yet none of you appears to acknowledge that effort, or recognize that Marriott is offering you some measure of financial relief that they are not required to give. It does appear that the group will only be satisfied if Marriott gives in to their every demand, whether warranted by contract or not. That is simply an unreasonable position.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg, Modo, isn't it? You can choose to negate all my thoughts about these issues by saying that they're the ramblings of an ignorant Marriott apologist, or you can really read what I've written and recognize that for me, it really does all come down to what an owner can expect from the contracts. Because that's all my ownership consists of - contracts with rules of use (that may be subject to change) for individual weeks at certain resorts within certain seasons in certain unit configurations. And as long as Marriott and I both follow the rules, we're hunky-dory.

modoaruba said:

You have this barrier that you cannot cross.
This situation has gotten to the point that the rules,as you see them, stand in the way of seeking a solution.
Help me understand why a company like MVCI,knowing that at least a 1,000 owners having concerns are alienated and not given the respect of debate,would rather contribute to the further gather of dissention amongst more owners.
Owners have gotten hit hard in the wallet which is always the wake up call.
They do not want to hear that this was the cause of the prior board but rather what is THIS board going to do for us.
A good starting point is to address the issues presented by the concerns by open debate.
Any further alienation,wether it be by bylaws or not,would be detrimental to what ever can be salvaged at this juncture.

Click to expand...

Modo,

The answer to your question is rather obvious. The concerned owners only represent a minority of the owners. They might be very vocal, they only represent a fraction of the total membership.

And as Sue notes, this is not a situation where the current board has been unresponsive to the concerns raised by your group. They have responded a number of times to the concerns.

The problem is that you do not like their answer. Which is completely your right. But it is not indicative of poor governance when the BoD does not cater to the whims of the vocal minority.

Nor is a open debate among all eligible voters with the board a reasonable process for governance. To what point or outcome?

allans email to concerned owners

Dear Owners,

I just returned from the Aruba Ocean Club Special Meeting held Saturday January 16, 2010. The meeting was called by the Board of Directors to propose an amendment to the By Laws which if passed would allow for the adding of Owners home and email addresses to the Association Register. No surprise that the amendment did not pass because of the Boards and Marriott's (MVCI) intent that the Register would be available for public use.

I am shocked and dismayed at the behavior of the Board and MCVI which I will describe in this letter. I am convinced more now than ever that we must take action to replace this Board with individuals who will represent the interest of the Owners and not Marriott (MVCI).

Mr. Knox, the current President of the BOD, introduced the Professional Parliamentarian - Nancy Sylvester (www.nancysylvester.com) (claiming to be one of 35 nationally recognized) who was attending for the Board and MVCI. To my knowledge, in MVCI’s 25 year history with over 50 resorts, MCVI has not hired a parliamentarian to run any other owner Board, yet MCVI has used this process twice for the Marriott Aruba Ocean Club. Who is paying these costs and why?

Also, in attendance were two attorneys representing the board and one attorney representing MCVI. The attorney representing MCVI did not participate in meeting but did observe the meeting from the back of the room. Most of the questions were addressed by the two attorneys representing the Board and MCVI’s Regional Vice President Troy Asche. The Board members had little to say. Huge amounts of Owner funds were being spent for all this.

Owners asked the Board if they could video tape and/or record the meeting for other owners to see. The Parliamentarian stated that it was not allowed. I then requested of the President Mr. Frank Knox if the Board would allow for the taping and/or recording. The Board said NO.

The following misrepresentation were stated by MVCI and the Board to the Owners: -

That this meeting and amendment to the By Laws was required by the Court. This is not true. I challenged this statement and requested that they read me the judgment from the court and show me where it says anything about calling a meeting or making an amendment. I had a copy with me and it is very clear. It does not. They refused to address this.

Let me reiterate what the Concerned Owners requested. We requested that the Board and MVCI provide us a method to contact owners to inform them about the Ocean Club and provide the ability for owners to communicate with each other. We did not request nor support that this information be made available to the public and or telemarketers as the Board stated. The Board and MVCI knows this. Since the Board refused our requests we sought a summary or expedited court ruling. The judge ruled that he did not see the urgency and recommended that we go to the full court. We are currently pursuing this.

We feel that this amendment was drafted as a scare tactic and anyone who did not know the real purpose would vote against the motion. No one wants their information shared with the public. This could have been easily corrected by an amendment to the By Laws creating an owner to owner register available for special purposes and under special conditions similar to Marriott's Grand Chateau in Las Vegas By Laws or the Board and MVCI could have just forwarded our information to all Owners.

The tactics of MVCI and the Board to control the owner list to prevent any owner to owner contact begs the question. What are they afraid of ? The vote as reported by the inspector of elections was:

Passed - 1,394 votes (697 weeks) (note 2 votes per owner week)
Failed - 7,352 votes (3,676 weeks)
Total voting - 8,746 votes (4373 weeks)

We have 218 villas times 51 weeks that were sold - 11,118 total owner weeks (not including Marriott votes which were not cast) - 6,745 owner weeks did not vote. Over 60% of the Owners did not vote.

This Board has spent well over $100,000 of owner funds and MVCI has spent thousands more in the effort to mislead Owners and continue to fight the ability of owners to contact each other. The Owner funds that are being spent are outrageous. Not one dime had to be spent - if they wanted owners to communicate with each other.

Let’s review what MVCI and the Board have done to prevent Marriott Aruba Ocean Club owners from bringing transparency to the actions of the Board:

1. They notified owners of this special session in a fashion that misrepresented how we would use the information in order to influence owner votes.

2. They called a Special Meeting of Owners on a Saturday at 12 noon - the busiest day for check in/out. Any owner checking out would have to be on the way to the airport by 12 noon and anyone one checking in has not arrived until after 12 noon. In the 10 year history of the AOC - no owner meeting has ever been held on a Saturday. Their actions assured a very low attendance of owners.

3. They drafted an amendment they knew would be defeated and called a special meeting of Owners stating that it was court ordered - which it was not.

4. They have refused to allow the recording or video taping of Board/Owner meetings that could be shared with all owners

5. They are trying to stop other owners from passing out cards on the beach in Aruba, which provide the web site address for the Aruba Ocean Club Concerned Owners. They defended this action claiming that solicitation is illegal. Our attorney clearly stated that this is not solicitation.

6. They have threatened the Aruba Today newspaper that they would no longer distribute its paper on any Marriott properties if they continued to run our newspaper ad The ad is presented below and has been pulled from Aruba Today.

ATTENTION
Marriott Aruba Ocean Club Owners
Join over 1,000 fellow week owners & register at
aocconcernedowners.com
created by owners to
Keep informed & learn the facts

(see my letter to Mr. Marriott about freedom of speech)

Our numbers continue to grow as Owners get informed of what is happening under the direction of the current Board and MVCI. They are wasting our money and misleading every Owner. We will continue our efforts and I will be alerting you soon of our next steps to control costs and seek justice at the Aruba Ocean Club.

Thank you for your continued support. Please forward any suggestions and recommendations as we prepare for the annual meeting in May.
Allan S. Cohen

Oh for the love of Pete ...

Marksue, do you realize that each and every time you copy/paste something from Allan to this thread, you are proving the point that Marriott made when they said that "the owners have a way to correspond to each other and that is through TUG?"

Allan, at what point are you going to make an effort to "control costs" for the MAOC owners who have followed your lead, and continuously find themselves being stymied by the competent legal forces at work for Marriott et al? This isn't rocket science here - you're simply throwing good money after bad decisions. It's well past the time for you to hire a competent attorney who will review every governing doc and related laws to determine how exactly you should proceed, and will put his/her name and expertise to every correspondence and action from this point forward. It makes no sense for you to continue on with business as usual, when it's obvious that you're not qualified for the task at hand. (And I mean no disrespect or insult here - it is obvious that you are not an attorney, and are not utilizing the services of a competent attorney to make the best of your bad situation.)

For example, related to the solicitation issue: Marriott's reaction should have been anticipated because your GM gave notice about this in the Dec 2009 newsletter.

All Owners are reminded to be courteous of others while they are on vacation. As outlined in Exhibit 3 of the Bylaws the Rules & Regulations state “There shall be no solicitation by any person anywhere on the Resort Property for any cause, charity or purpose whatsoever, unless specifically authorized in writing by the Board of Directors or Managing Agent...” We ask all Owners to respect the Association Bylaws.

Click to expand...

Also, this is one legal definition:

In civil law, solicitation means any request or appeal, either oral or written, or any endeavor to obtain, seek or plead for funds, property, financial assistance or other thing of value ...

Click to expand...

So, on what basis can your attorney "clearly state" that "... passing out cards on the beach in Aruba ..." is not solicitation, based on either the bylaw or standard legal definition, when the ultimate goal of new members being enticed to join the "concerned owners" group can satisfy the "thing of value" definition requirement? And as an aside, are any of you aware that your attorney needs to "prove" a point, and not just "clearly state" it, in order for it to be true and legally binding?

Throughout this thread it's been obvious that MAOC owners, "concerned owners" or not, are concerned about the escalating costs and overall financial situation at your resort. That's why I'm so amazed that someone, anyone, from the "concerned owners" group isn't asking similar questions to these now. Are you really all satisfied with the actions of your leadership here? Are you all still willing to continue on in the same manner, knowing that it is Marriott et al's intention to foist the costs for defending their actions onto all of the MAOC owners? And that disproving your responsibility for those costs rests with the same leadership and legal counsel that has brought you to the point where you are today?

Just a clarification.
The beaches in Aruba are public.Other than the palapas and seating,Marriott has NO claim to what is being handed out on the beach.
If they did there would be no solicitations by other TS sales force,restaurants outside of Marriott,watersports outside of Marriott,etc.
Purely illegal to silence anyone other than those committing a criminal act.

I have observed myself a greater presence of security on the beach last we were there.Now I understand.

modoaruba said:

Just a clarification.
The beaches in Aruba are public.Other than the palapas and seating,Marriott has NO claim to what is being handed out on the beach.
If they did there would be no solicitations by other TS sales force,restaurants outside of Marriott,watersports outside of Marriott,etc.
Purely illegal to silence anyone other than those committing a criminal act.

I have observed myself a greater presence of security on the beach last we were there.Now I understand.

Click to expand...

That, what I bolded, is simply untrue, Modo. This is a civil law issue, not criminal.

Are you absolutely certain that no MAOC guests who were seated in the palapas or anywhere else on the beach that IS considered within the property, have been approached by these solicitors? It only takes one instance for Marriott to prove in court that an action taken by a member of the "concerned owners" group against the bylaws/civil solicitation laws has occurred.