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

Modo,

If someone offers constructive criticism you don't need to act so put out. Sue is giving you good advice. You imply that she is working for Marriott and that is not so, she just sees things as they are and not just from one perspective. You constantly say that Marriott is listening and monitoring this site- has it occurred to you that they could just as easily join the "private" concerned owners site and monitor that also? The company, and their staff and sales people, own many units at the Ocean Club too and I'm sure they are just as concerned (though perhaps in a different way). How do you know that they aren't monitoring that too? I'm actually only kidding saying that, but it's about as absurd as some of the other conspiracy theories that you are throwing out. At this point I think many of the owners have probably heard about your crusade just by word of mouth, as well as from other sources.

tlwmkw

marksue said:

This case will not end until the list is received. The vote was based on false information and the method and message used is being presented in the courts. This is the first step of a multiple step process. As mentioned previously our attorney is operating on a contingency basis.

We the concerned owners believe strongly we will prevail in the courts. The reason we are in the courts is the BOD would not send out the mailing we had asked and we even offered to pay for the postage. Youwant to blame anyone for the costs, look at th BOD who felt the voice of many owners was not worth sharing with the rest of the owners, yet they could send out a mailing using scare tactics.

Have a great day.

Click to expand...

Here's another example of how you are allowing your victim mentality to cloud your judgment:

Marriott did with that mailing what any company would do if they're in the same situation of being challenged by owners/stockholders. If you're not familiar with that standard practice, whenever a vote is required the company is mandated to send to each owner a notice of the vote/action date, place and time, a copy of the exact amendment/rule as it will be written into the governing docs, and a proxy form and instructions for absentee voting. Usually the cover letter explains each of the enclosures as well as the company's opinion of the matter up for vote, including whatever reasonable future ramifications the vote results may cause.

It sounds like what you expect Marriott to do is what is required when a vote is put forward in a county/state/federal government arena, where it's mandated that pro and con opinions of the issue be presented on a ballot. That's not what is required in a business setting and it's unreasonable to expect it of Marriott. The company isn't required to offer any explanation at all of the vote issue, but naturally most will present the best/worst scenario to strengthen their pro/con position.

You call it scare tactics but it really is meant to be a logical reasoning to educate the owners/stockholders as best they can to the company's position on the issue, and why the company believes passage will be good or bad for the owners. And in this case, Marriott's opinion in that letter was logical! Do you deny that if the amendment had passed as it was written, Marriott would have no control over how owners' contact information could be used at any point in the future?

Once more, your problem isn't that Marriott is doing something unethical or illegal here - what they did is SOP. Your problem is that you're not paying a competent attorney to take complete control of the actions that are needed for you to be successful. While Allan was busy drumming up support for and putting his version of the bylaw amendment (that would have limited contact information to only owners for specific purposes) on your website, in this thread on TUG and every other place except in a competent attorney's hands, Marriott was able to jump in ahead of him to put their version (which had broader scope and thus could have been more open to abuse) of the amendment up for a vote. That's the strategy Marriott has followed throughout this ordeal, and your ineffective posturing is making it easy for them.

Get proactive! As long as this is costing all of the owners good money anyway, let the "concerned owners" put their money where their mouths are and ante up the money to hire a lawyer who will be honest enough to tell you what you can (and cannot!) reasonably expect from Marriott, and how s/he can go about getting it for you. Forget this "contingency" thing that's not working. It's long past time.

tlwmkw said:

Suedonj,

You are absolutely right. This is just going to get more and more expensive if the lawsuits continue. The irony is that the concerned owners are really suing themselves since they are owners at the resort and the board was elected by them to represent them. So they'll be paying the concerned owners lawyers as well as the AOC's lawyers via their maintenance fees- how can they possibly win in this case? If I owned there I would be starting to get upset at the extra expense they are putting on all the other owners.

As to the accounting firms I agree with you there too- after what happened with Enron and Arthur Andersen in recent years I don't think they would "look the other way" and allow MVCI to do anything that wasn't legal. It's not in the interest of the accountant to take any risk in this. What benefit would it be to them? None. As you say there is a huge amount of distrust between the two sides and no sign of anyone meeting in the middle. I think getting out is the best option for those that don't like it. They bought a Marriott resort and if they don't like how it's run then they should vote with their feet and leave. I remember Ellen sold her week there after all this came about. She still likes MVCI but not so much the AOC.

tlwmkw

Click to expand...

Yup - love Aruba and Marriott, but I am so, so glad I sold my week. I wish only the best for all owners - and hope to rent from one of them in the next year or two.

can anyone give us a small summary of what is going on? Was a lawsuit filed?

Yes

rickxylon said:

And you always tell the truth, right?

Click to expand...

I would say I am a very honest person who was very loyal to Marriott and lost faith in their Brand name because of my personal experiences and believe it or not I sincerely believe that Sue and Eric support Marriott because they do not have the same experiences as I do. I also understand that some owners may be concerned that the actions to challenge Marriott will cost them money and I do believe they should voice their concerns directly to Allan because he will hear them, he is a reasonable person and those concerns will also be heard.

So in answer to your question, I am an honest person, although I did tell my kids there was a Santa Claus and an Easter Bunny so I guess there are sometimes where I stretch the truth.:whoopie: :whoopie: :whoopie: :whoopie:

lovearuba said:

I would say I am a very honest person who was very loyal to Marriott and lost faith in their Brand name because of my personal experiences and believe it or not I sincerely believe that Sue and Eric support Marriott because they do not have the same experiences as I do. I also understand that some owners may be concerned that the actions to challenge Marriott will cost them money and I do believe they should voice their concerns directly to Allan because he will hear them, he is a reasonable person and those concerns will also be heard.

So in answer to your question, I am an honest person, although I did tell my kids there was a Santa Claus and an Easter Bunny so I guess there are sometimes where I stretch the truth.:whoopie: :whoopie: :whoopie: :whoopie:

Click to expand...

That is the funny thing about this discussion. You see anyone who does not support the "crusade" as supporting Marriott.

If we truly supported Marriott, why would any of us bother to offer any constructive comments that might improve the effectiveness of your "crusade". Why would I offer to review your by-laws? Why would any of those that you view as being "pro-Marriott" do anything besides telling you to pack it in?

The only thing I oppose is the biased and slanted way that your group has attempted to use TUG to influence owners to join the crusade. If opposing the manipulation of the truth makes me "Pro-Marriott", then so be it. I personally think you should not complain about how the BoD behaves, when your group uses the same or worse tactics to achieve their goals.

lovearuba said:

I would say I am a very honest person who was very loyal to Marriott and lost faith in their Brand name because of my personal experiences and believe it or not I sincerely believe that Sue and Eric support Marriott because they do not have the same experiences as I do. ...

Click to expand...

I can't speak for Eric but I find this all very frustrating because no matter how many times I've tried to explain what I'm thinking, some members of the "concerned owners" group just don't try to comprehend what I write here. (Like I said, I'm not speaking for Eric here, but I do see while reading here how other critics might feel the same way I do.)

None of what I've posted here has been blind support of Marriott, and I don't have any loyalty to Marriott (although I do love my Marriott weeks.) In my opinion, the only difference between your ownership, Lovearuba, and mine, is that I didn't allow Marriott salespeople or any other employee to tell me what I purchased. I read the documents to learn exactly what my rights and Marriott's are.

My criticisms here of the "concerned owners" group's actions aren't meant to be blind support of Marriott, they are meant to be exactly what they appear to be - criticisms of your actions. And like Eric says, they've been made to help you focus on reasonable expectations so that you can achieve whatever success might be possible. Because even though I am not an MAOC owner, I am an MVCI owner and I think it's important for owners to get exactly what they're entitled to. Nothing less, of course, but just as importantly nothing more.

Marriott Dropped from most Ethical company

This was just sent to me -

Marriott dropped from 2010 most ethical companies - they were on in 2009.

DROPPED FROM TOP 100 IN 2010:
Marriott International (MAR.N)


2010 World’s Most Ethical Companies
The World’s Most Ethical Companies designation recognizes companies that truly go beyond making statements about doing business “ethically” and translate those words into action. WME honorees demonstrate real and sustained ethical leadership within their industries, putting into real business practice the Institute’s credo of “Good. Smart. Business. Profit.”
There is no set number of companies that make the list each year. Rather, the World’s Most Ethical Company designation is awarded to those companies that have leading ethics and compliance programs, particularly as compared to their industry peers. This year, there are 100 World’s Most Ethical Companies. Of these companies, 26 are new to the list in 2010 and 24 companies dropped off from the 2009 list. These “drop offs” generally occurred because of litigation and ethics violations, as well as increased competition from within their industry.
IT CAN PAY TO BE ETHICAL
Investing in ethics is beneficial for any company, even in a recession. The below graph compares the “WME Index,” or all publicly traded 2010 World’s Most Ethical Company honorees, against the S&P 500 and FTSE since 2005.

MEDIA RESPONSIBILITY REPORT
For the first time, in concert with the announcement of the 2010 World’s Most Ethical Companies, Ethisphere has published its first annual Media Responsibility Report. This report discloses the methodologies, editorial approach and financial relationships behind the generation of the annual World’s Most Ethical Companies list.
The 2010 Ethisphere Media Responsibility Report can be found here.
2010 WORLD’S MOST ETHICAL COMPANY SELECTION PROCESS:
1. The Methodology
A methodology committee of leading attorneys, professors, government officials and organization leaders, assisted Ethisphere in creating the scoring methodology for the World’s Most Ethical Companies awards.
2. Candidate Selection
Over the course of the year, companies across the world submitted their applications to become 2010 World’s Most Ethical Companies. Based on these applications, as well as information Ethisphere gathered throughout the year, a list of semi-finalists was created.
3. In-Depth Analysis
At this stage, semi-finalist companies were notified and given an in-depth survey questionnaire to fill out regarding their ethics and compliance program, governance and corporate responsibility.
4. Further Refinement
Ethisphere then conducted data analysis on hundreds of companies based on their responses to the survey, as well as documents and information researched and requested by Ethisphere to confirm survey responses. Every company was then given an EQ score based on the results of the survey and measured against seven distinct categories. These categories were Corporate Citizenship and Responsibility; Corporate Governance; Innovation that Contributes to the Public Well Being; Industry leadership; Executive Leadership and Tone from the Top; Legal, Regulatory and Reputation Track Record; and Internal Systems and Ethics/Compliance Program.

Just when I thought this thread had FINALLY come to a long (long, long) overdue demise, we get another posting . . .

:deadhorse:

DB-Wis said:

Just when I thought this thread had FINALLY come to a long (long, long) overdue demise, we get another posting . . .

Click to expand...

Here's the link related to Marksue's notice, if anyone's interested.

Aside from that, I hope this thread doesn't just die without some kind of wrap-up. I'm interested to know the final outcome when all is said and done.

Based on the list of companies in each industry it looks like a lot of good and profitable companies did not make the list either. Should we draw the same conclusions about them that marksue is implying should be drawn about Marriott?

Annual meeting is May 21 I think.
Wonder if they got approval for taping it.
Surely there after there will be a cache of information that will be fully disected and discussed and interpreted in infinite directions from all of our great minds to finally come up with a unanimous conclusion that the world is either round or flat but there is always a breeze in Aruba.
(take the word breeze in any way you want).

Sue,you wanted to keep it alive.So there's my 2 cents
Just saying HI.

HI! Hey Modo, your team sure is something to see this year, so far. Can't say it was any fun to watch this past weekend.

And it isn't that I don't want this whole situation with your resort to end - I've said throughout the thread that I'm hoping it ends with the best possible resolution for the resort, ALL owners, and MVCI. Sadly, that doesn't mean that ALL owners will be happy with the outcome, although I hope you'll all still at least be able to enjoy your vacations.

What I don't want is for this thread to end without any notice at all of the resolution. Some of us non-owners have invested a good bit of time and knowledge here; I hope the owners will let us know how it all turns out.

hi modo

modoaruba said:

Annual meeting is May 21 I think.
Wonder if they got approval for taping it.
Surely there after there will be a cache of information that will be fully disected and discussed and interpreted in infinite directions from all of our great minds to finally come up with a unanimous conclusion that the world is either round or flat but there is always a breeze in Aruba.
(take the word breeze in any way you want).

Sue,you wanted to keep it alive.So there's my 2 cents
Just saying HI.

Click to expand...

Yankee fan? oh well, our sox will rebound, maybe in another 86 years. No to the taping question, not surprised though. The world is round I hear but there is not always a breeze in Aruba and I have heard the beep on the angry horn.

It's either having a good team or paying down some of the national debt with all those salaries.So,we got a good team,so far.Thanks for noticing.

Other than that,my vacations in Aruba will NEVER be a let down due to the current state of the world and other suches(is that a word?) no matter what the outcome.

Life's too short. So-whatever.

Nice hearing from you.

marksue said:

This was just sent to me -

Marriott dropped from 2010 most ethical companies - they were on in 2009.

DROPPED FROM TOP 100 IN 2010:
Marriott International (MAR.N)


2010 World’s Most Ethical Companies
The World’s Most Ethical Companies designation recognizes companies that truly go beyond making statements about doing business “ethically” and translate those words into action. WME honorees demonstrate real and sustained ethical leadership within their industries, putting into real business practice the Institute’s credo of “Good. Smart. Business. Profit.”
There is no set number of companies that make the list each year. Rather, the World’s Most Ethical Company designation is awarded to those companies that have leading ethics and compliance programs, particularly as compared to their industry peers. This year, there are 100 World’s Most Ethical Companies. Of these companies, 26 are new to the list in 2010 and 24 companies dropped off from the 2009 list. These “drop offs” generally occurred because of litigation and ethics violations, as well as increased competition from within their industry.
IT CAN PAY TO BE ETHICAL
Investing in ethics is beneficial for any company, even in a recession. The below graph compares the “WME Index,” or all publicly traded 2010 World’s Most Ethical Company honorees, against the S&P 500 and FTSE since 2005.

MEDIA RESPONSIBILITY REPORT
For the first time, in concert with the announcement of the 2010 World’s Most Ethical Companies, Ethisphere has published its first annual Media Responsibility Report. This report discloses the methodologies, editorial approach and financial relationships behind the generation of the annual World’s Most Ethical Companies list.
The 2010 Ethisphere Media Responsibility Report can be found here.
2010 WORLD’S MOST ETHICAL COMPANY SELECTION PROCESS:
1. The Methodology
A methodology committee of leading attorneys, professors, government officials and organization leaders, assisted Ethisphere in creating the scoring methodology for the World’s Most Ethical Companies awards.
2. Candidate Selection
Over the course of the year, companies across the world submitted their applications to become 2010 World’s Most Ethical Companies. Based on these applications, as well as information Ethisphere gathered throughout the year, a list of semi-finalists was created.
3. In-Depth Analysis
At this stage, semi-finalist companies were notified and given an in-depth survey questionnaire to fill out regarding their ethics and compliance program, governance and corporate responsibility.
4. Further Refinement
Ethisphere then conducted data analysis on hundreds of companies based on their responses to the survey, as well as documents and information researched and requested by Ethisphere to confirm survey responses. Every company was then given an EQ score based on the results of the survey and measured against seven distinct categories. These categories were Corporate Citizenship and Responsibility; Corporate Governance; Innovation that Contributes to the Public Well Being; Industry leadership; Executive Leadership and Tone from the Top; Legal, Regulatory and Reputation Track Record; and Internal Systems and Ethics/Compliance Program.

Click to expand...

I don't think one can read anything into this. Those type of lists are fairly subjective. One would have to have the ratings and specific info that went in to the score to make any deductions. Marriott was the only one on the list last year.

No to the taping

Frank Knox, the AOC boards’ illustrious president, who backed into being reelected by Marriott voting their shares against the owners, will not allow taping of the meeting because he said he works for a bank.

marksue said:

Frank Knox, the AOC boards’ illustrious president, who backed into being reelected by Marriott voting their shares against the owners, will not allow taping of the meeting because he said he works for a bank.

Click to expand...

Why do I see this dastardly image when reading this "information"? Curses! Foiled again!

marksue said:

Frank Knox, the AOC boards’ illustrious president, who backed into being reelected by Marriott voting their shares against the owners, will not allow taping of the meeting because he said he works for a bank.

Click to expand...

Aren't bank execs being taped in front of congressional inquisitions for all to see?
I am sure the numbers of those who would watch any taping of our board meetings wouldn't make it by any means to be considered by Gallup on a top to watch list.
He could wear a mask or not be taped himself.If that was the real reason for not allowing taping it is pure BS.
Anyone attending would know who he is and have ample opportunity to photograph him at some point.Get real.
Besides.It's not the bank that needs the bailout here
. It's the owners.

Recap letter to Arne Sorenson after shreholders meeting

Dear Arne,

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to chat after Friday's 2010 Marriott International annual meeting and I am sure you are just about out of patience with this matter, but you must realize that thousands of Marriott Aruba Ocean Club Concerned Owners are, too.

A few comments made during and after the meeting continue to raise the question of ethics, transparency and unfair tactics. To that point, I was very unhappy to also be informed at the annual meeting that Marriott International who in 2007, 2008 and 2009 was listed is no longer included in the 2010 Ethisphere Institute's List of the World's Most Ethical Companies. I now wish to comment on statements made:

1. Mr. Marriott stated he was "unaware" of the successful efforts of MVCI executive staff to have our notice removed from Aruba Today newspaper. MVCI senior staff confirmed this in court, but denied this fact to the owners at our special meeting in January. What other gaps of information have been withheld by senior MVCI executives?

2. You stated that "you have written some heavy checks at the resort including paying for windows", but owner trust and confidence cannot be bought. Yes, you have paid for a number of items, but you have never told the owners the complete story. The Owners expected a 1st class resort with a brand new building. During my term of 6+ years as President and Board member, owners paid huge sums for the repairs and maintenance of a building (including atrium windows a few years ago) that now is known to have had major issues inherited from earlier construction. a fact that was never disclosed to the Owners. Although every dollar that you fund and have funded is appreciated, many of the problems continue and funding is not the most pertinent issue here. Rather, the most pertinent issues center around the actions and ethics of MVCI management to prevent full disclosure and transparency to the Owners who are rightfully entitled to this critical information.

3. Mr. Marriott’s statement that: "talking to MVCI is talking to Marriott International" is so unfortunate. He asked if I had heard from Mr. Weisz personally about this -- the answer is "No". How you can continue to rely on this division’s actions when the shocking tactics of a few senior MVCI staff is causing a negative ripple effect within MI and will not go away. Some very simple math using extremely conservative numbers will show the ripple effect: If 1000 owners who stayed at Marriott Hotels & Resorts (not Vacation Clubs) at least 7 nights per year at a rate of $200 per night stopped staying, the loss to Marriott International would be $1.4 million dollars, not including the revenue from incidentals. Based upon the number of inquiries received from owners at other MVCI properties, the Marriott Aruba Ocean Club is only the tip of the iceberg. I personally believe that if a person like William Love was still at MVCI we would not be in this situation.
4. You stated that "you have read hundreds of letters from our Concerned Owners and spent many hours being briefed by MVCI and did not know what else you could do"; and yes as you stated there are certainly some "gray areas" . You should allow for neutral oversight of the actions of MVCI. We have offered many times our willingness to meet. We cannot understand your refusal to work together with us constructively in productive partnership to resolve these issues for our mutual benefit.
5. You stated that: "Marriott voted for me when I was first elected to the Board". While that is an accurate statement, did MVCI disclose that my election was to a Developers Controlled Board since Marriott owned the majority of the shares? MVCI openly and very proudly stated to me each year that after the Owners took majority control, they would never vote their shares against the owners’ interest. And they did not - until last year when the owners overwhelming voted against the current President, and MVCI voted to overrule that decision.
6. Mr. Marriott stated that during his visits to Aruba this year he had "met with owners who were very pleased and the Guest Satisfaction Score (GSS) is over 90%". Unfortunately, GSS measures a specific vacation week for renters as well as owners and there is no Owner Satisfaction Score (OSS) that measures owner expectations, perceived value and confidence in MVCI management. You are probably unaware that prior to Mr Marriott's visit MVCI informed me and the concerned owners that his visit had been canceled and he would not be on the island, so that we could not meet; and then when he did arrive they took owners off the property by calling a special owners meeting for concerned owners in the hotel, as a diversion during his walk through of the Ocean Club.

7. You stated that "84% of the owners had voted against my efforts" (a) that is 84% of the 37% of owners who actually voted, or in other words 31%). (b) These are not “my” actions but actions taken on behalf of over 1000 Concerned Owners, with 30 owners representing 14 states and 2 countries signing on directly, seeking owner to owner contact. (c) The statements made to the owners -- that the court ordered the special meeting and the proposed amendment which required the spending of over $100,000 of owners funds and more in Marriott corporate funds -- are not true, as MVCI executive staff are fully aware. The amendment as drafted with oversight of MVCI senior staff would allow the Owner Register to include addresses, making it available to the public and as they stated to potential telemarketers. That is not what the court ordered and not what we had requested or would support. (I have complete documentation to back my statements; additionally, we are well aware of what is done at the Marriott Grand Chateau in Las Vegas or the Marriott Custom House in Boston.) We even offered to allow MVCI to just send out the “Concerned Owners notice” on our behalf, to all owners, without giving us access to the list; and they refused. Why is MVCI so afraid of owner to owner contact specifically on Ocean Club business matters, an attitude and position that has at the very least the appearance of impropriety and willfully misleading the owners, and for what purpose ?
.
As I get ready to leave for the Aruba annual meeting, I only wish you could be a fly on the wall and observe the actions of your MVCI staff. I can only hope that with their paid parliamentarian MVCI will not seize control of the owners meeting and use their votes against the owners’ interests yet again.
The Concerned Owners are ready to move forward in a positive way and I believe that we can resolve these issues and rebuild faith in the Marriott brand.

Marksue,

I have a question. Did you draft this letter or did Alan Cohen? The letter makes mention of serving 6 years on the board.

7. You stated that "84% of the owners had voted against my efforts" (a) that is 84% of the 37% of owners who actually voted, or in other words 31%).

Click to expand...

If my math is right that means that 16% of the 37% backs the concerned owners or 2.2% of all owners. If my math is wrong please let me know. In my humble opinon that seems like a very low total of all owners.


As an owner of 2 weeks at the Ocean Club, I have been following this thread from the get go. I believe you have accomplished your goal of transparency as we are getting updates regularly from the board and I am very concerned about the added cost of defending a lawsuit. Just my two cents on this.

This is ALan's recap. Sorry I thought I had cut and psted his name at the end. THe concerned owners represent almost 20% of all the weeks. The reason fo rthe lawsuit is to get the name and addresses of all owners to share with them both sides and not jsut Marriott's side. The board and MVCI sent out a proxy based on a bunch of lies and they knew it. They just tried to scare the pwjers to not allow thier names to be released.

We had offered to have them send out our letters and we would pay the cost and they said no. So we have no other choice then to go to court and have the board and MVCI waste our money.

marksue said:

This is ALan's recap. Sorry I thought I had cut and psted his name at the end. THe concerned owners represent almost 20% of all the weeks. The reason fo rthe lawsuit is to get the name and addresses of all owners to share with them both sides and not jsut Marriott's side. The board and MVCI sent out a proxy based on a bunch of lies and they knew it. They just tried to scare the pwjers to not allow thier names to be released.

We had offered to have them send out our letters and we would pay the cost and they said no. So we have no other choice then to go to court and have the board and MVCI waste our money.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, MVCI is not wasting money and you do have another choice. MVCI has no choice but to respond to challenges from minority ownership groups but you can choose to drop the lawsuit which is costing ALL owners in real dollars as well as a significant erosion of the MVCI/MAOC owner relationship.

Of course to make that choice you first need to recognize that the owners who have not joined your efforts are not as ignorant as you continue to insinuate they are. The truth is that ALL owners have received the exact same multiple detailed communications from MVCI, the MAOC GM and the MAOC BOD. And for whatever reasons, the majority MAOC ownership haven't looked at that info as suspect or worthy of searching out dissatisfied owners - proof of that is the fact that they've not taken the same routes to this thread and your website that every "concerned owner" has. By virtue of the voter turnout for that last Special Meeting, they also have plainly said that they do not wish to be force-fed information from any entity other than Marriott. Isn't it possible that the majority ownership who has NOT joined your efforts, recognizes that the increased fees were necessary to overcome the previous boards' shortcomings in maintaining the resort standard? Isn't is possible that they've done their own research and come to the conclusion that as owners they bear the financial responsibility for their resort regardless of past history, and that they appreciate Marriott's contributions which have been over and above what is required of the management company?

Susan,

I agree with you. There is always a choice not to sue and attempt to find a solution that works for everyone instead. The transparency issue seems to have been resolved since MVCI is clearly explaining everything they do now so what are the goals of this group? They have never really said and I have to think that they don't really know themselves.

Marksue,

You said that the Concerned owners represent 20% of the weeks at the AOC- if that is so why were they not concerned enough to vote in the election? There seems to be a little confusion there- if only 37% voted and 84% of those were against then where were the concerned owners votes? You can't say that they were fooled by the bogus proxy because they knew exactly what you were trying to achieve.

tlwmkw