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

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...

I, and obviously many other owners, did not and do not believe Marriott fed any lies. As a matter of fact, many of the statements from the "concerned owners group" have bordered on being at least misleading statements.

Please drop your lawsuit and stop wasting the money of EVERY owner!

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...

Regardless of Frank Knox's answer when he was put on the spot by somebody asking to tape a meeting just minutes before it began, why do you continue to ignore the known facts about accepted practices for taping meetings that have been offered in this thread by obviously knowledgeable people?

Check out this and this from tlwmkw, and this from timeos2, and other related posts in the same section of the thread.

You have a problem with Frank Knox's excuse and delivery, I get that. But do you get that there are reasonable justifiable excuses for the meetings not being taped, and that perhaps you'll be wasting more time and effort if you continue to focus on Frank Knox's excuse instead of the unreasonableness of your demand to tape meetings?

SueDonJ said:

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?

Click to expand...

And who was president of the board during this time? Wasn't it Allen?

Marksue, I know this thread is just a sounding board for you and Allan, and that neither of you ever has any intention of responding to the posts with specific questions that are generated by Allan's missives being re-printed here. But I have a simple question - does any Marriott employee ever respond in writing directly to Allan? The guy spends hours writing up pages and pages of letters that he sends to specific people - do any of his letters ever get a personal response?

Perceptions

SueDonJ said:

Marksue, I know this thread is just a sounding board for you and Allan, and that neither of you ever has any intention of responding to the posts with specific questions that are generated by Allan's missives being re-printed here. But I have a simple question - does any Marriott employee ever respond in writing directly to Allan? The guy spends hours writing up pages and pages of letters that he sends to specific people - do any of his letters ever get a personal response?

Click to expand...

Funny, I thought it was your board

lovearuba said:

Funny, I thought it was your board

Click to expand...

Well of course it's my board. It's just as much anyone's who has contributed to the discussion in this thread.

I was trying to nicely point out that Allan doesn't use this board for discussion but rather as a place to deposit his rantings and ravings against anything Marriott, and that he isn't known for or likely to respond to any specific questions that are generated by his reprints here. But thanks anyway, for pointing out not so nicely that the leader and some members of the "concerned owners" group aren't interested in discussion but only soliciting blind sheep.

Maksue,


If, as you claim, that 20% of all weeks are concerned owners, why did only 2% cast votes in your favor? Sorry, as Alan's letter states that 84% of the 37% of all owners that voted sided with Marriott. That means that 16% of 37% voted in your favor which is 2%. I'm pretty sure my math is right Regardless of how many owners you claim, could it be that 18% of your group are not as passionate about the cause as you are?

jimf41 said:

Over 20,000 reads and 500 posts. Can we end it now. It's fascinating to see people vent . Just like reality TV. Nothing more to be discussed. No more new information to be disclosed. Can we just end this now?

Click to expand...

This is my first post on page 21. This thread is nothing more than non-sexual voyeurism. We're on page 71 now and I've read about a third of the posts. Nothing new since page 21, just more ranting and personal attacks. Fun to read on a rainy day though.

You are in control.
You can put down the binoculars and shut the curtains if you are not into voyeurism at any time.
Already on page 71 eh? Maybe you are not in control after all.I am sure that there is an 800 number you can call for advice.
Better do it soon because once you get to page 107 you're fried.

Don't be so quick to judge another. Whether you see 71 or 107 (or as few as 37) pages in this thread depends on how many posts per page you set as your preference in your profile (from the "User CP" link on the above blue bar).

griffer331 said:

That means that 16% of 37% voted in your favor which is 2%.

Click to expand...

Actually, 16% of 37% is just under 6%.

(Edit: I didn't correct you to be annoying. I figured it was better coming from someone who wasn't emotionally invested in the number. I don't have a horse in this race.)

jimf41 said:

This is my first post on page 21. This thread is nothing more than non-sexual voyeurism. We're on page 71 now and I've read about a third of the posts. Nothing new since page 21, just more ranting and personal attacks. Fun to read on a rainy day though.

Click to expand...

:rofl: I've been called many things but never a voyeur. Ooooh, it sounds so exotic.

But really, Jim, I sort of get what you're saying and I'll freely admit that this thread is fascinating to me. But I've learned a lot while participating here so I don't look at it as a waste of time or useless at all.

SueDonJ said:

Marksue, I know this thread is just a sounding board for you and Allan, and that neither of you ever has any intention of responding to the posts with specific questions that are generated by Allan's missives being re-printed here. But I have a simple question - does any Marriott employee ever respond in writing directly to Allan? The guy spends hours writing up pages and pages of letters that he sends to specific people - do any of his letters ever get a personal response?

Click to expand...

There was an interesting exchange between Bill Marriott and an Aruba OC owner at the annual shareholders meeting last week.

You can hear it on Marriott.com.
Here is the link

Thanks, Fred. This is a new laptop and I can't figure out how to d/l the player yet but I'll keep working at it.

Marksue's post reprinting Allan's letter includes a few items (1, 3 and 6) referencing his exchange with Mr. Marriott at the annual meeting - perhaps the exchange you heard is what Allan was talking about?

SueDonJ said:

Thanks, Fred. This is a new laptop and I can't figure out how to d/l the player yet but I'll keep working at it.

Marksue's post reprinting Allan's letter includes a few items (1, 3 and 6) referencing his exchange with Mr. Marriott at the annual meeting - perhaps the exchange you heard is what Allan was talking about?

Click to expand...

Yes, the OC owner was Allan Cohen.

I just read items 1, 3 , and 6 of Allan's letter (as posted by Marksue).
The dialog at the meeting was not quite what the letter represented.
At least, as I heard it.
As the audio is unedited, anyone interested can decide for themselves.

Dave M said:

Don't be so quick to judge another. Whether you see 71 or 107 (or as few as 37) pages in this thread depends on how many posts per page you set as your preference in your profile (from the "User CP" link on the above blue bar).

Click to expand...

Just to clarify.
No judgement was made by me. Jim,no intention of demeaning your statement.
Sometimes it gets a bit pathetic and boring that I just throw some humor in.
If anyone has any problem with that-oh well.
I for one still have my scopes out.So there.

It's amazing how this thread is still alive

No offense taken at all Modo. Like you I have a sense of humor that's not always appreciated. Mine not yours. While I don't contribute anything factual to this thread I do read it. That makes me feel a little like a peeping Tom.

I am very proud of the fact that after hitting the send button I will have contributed 3 posts to what has got to be the longest thread in both posts and reads in the history of TUG.

DaveM, thanks I didn't know you could could change the posts per page. Learn something new all the time on this board.

jimf41 said:

could could change the posts per page. Learn something new all the time on this board.

Click to expand...

I have my posts per page set to 75. Far less changing of pages, longer load times though.

Notes from the AOC Annual Meeting: May 21, 2010

ARUBA OCEAN CLUB CONCERNED OWNERS

I just returned from the 2010 AOC Annual meeting and am both shocked and dismayed of what has occurred and this report will document the reasons why. It will give you some very distressing news and in spite of the tactics and actions taken against the Concerned owners there is some positive news. We have again offered to resolve our dispute and for the first time the AOC Board has shown a willingness to meet and discuss our request for the ability to provide owner to owner contact. During the next 30 days we will be attempting to work together for this purpose. Even though as you will see below the AOC Board has joined with MVCI and blocked our efforts at every turn, I hope that you accept my invitation to do some serious thinking about our next steps with the AOC Board. I also hope that you will agree that we take Arne Sorenson’s, President of Marriott’s International’s offer to arrange a meeting to seek closure on our issues with MVCI. I look forward to your advice.

ACTIVITY REPORT FOR 2010 ARUBA OCEAN CLUB ANNUAL MEETING

I went to the meeting representing 1360 votes (last year we had around 960) which shows that our numbers are growing, but after meeting with Marriott (MVCI) officials including, 2 Finance executives, Surf Club GM, and the MVCI hired Parliamentarian for over 3 hours the day before the meeting and having every proxy verified, the Concerned Owners were informed by the hired Parliamentarian that the proxy form had been changed by MVCI since last year and our votes could not be used for any of the candidates for the Board.

Last year the proxy form stated that the proxy was to be used “on all items on the Agenda” and this year these words were changed to “not on the Agenda” With the addition of the word not – we were prohibited from using our votes for the election of candidates to the Board. The proxies with their change would mean that they could only be used for items from the floor and not on the agenda.

Later that night I received a call from Troy Ashe, Regional VP of Florida and Caribbean Operations and Dirk Schavemaker , Senior VP Customer Experience & Resort Operations from MVCI who asked to meet with the concerned owners to discuss this matter. We met late into Thursday night protesting this change. They informed me that this is the standard form that MVCI uses at all their resorts and our previous form which had been used for the last 2 years was not. I noted that our By Laws Article 4.5 state “Votes may be cast in person or by proxy …” there are no limitations noted on the proxy. We also agreed to meet together with the Board after the annual meeting to discuss a settlement pertaining to the owner contact legal action.

Since my return I have reviewed copies of prior years proxies and I have not seen any limitation on the proxy form stating that it could only be used for items NOT on the agenda.

We were informed of two additional statements the night before the vote: 1. that MVCI now would be casting their 1500 votes every year (and would be voting at all MVCI properties) 2. that our votes even if counted would not make a difference in the outcome of the election of Board members (a comment I find insulting the evening before the vote was to occur).

You can make your own conclusion, I am sorry that when I sent out the notice requesting that you forward me your proxies prior to seeing the proxy form I was unaware of this change and after receiving the revised proxy form I did not catch the change.

My personal feeling is that MVCI intentionally deceived the Owners. Because of last years votes by the Concerned Owners, MVCI was afraid that we might get enough votes to select new candidates to the Board and they deliberately changed the form to prevent this. (we informed the Parliamentarian that a notice to the reader should have been printed on the proxy indicating that changes were made, she acknowledged that would have been appropriate)

I did raise a point of order at the meeting to the Board protesting this action and the Board members stated that they were unaware of the proxy change prior to receiving it. A statement that seems questionable if we truly have an owner board or is this a Marriott Board? After discussion with their legal counsel, the AOC Board stated that they could not accept our votes. I informed them that they have now alienated all the owners whose votes would not be counted and that this was a very divisive tactic.

The vote count for the Board of Directors as announced at the meeting was;

Bonville 2008 (without our owner proxies)
Fanning 2004 (without our owner proxies)
Pericolosi 2550 plus MVCI’s 1510 votes = 4060
Richards 2032 plus MVCI’s 1510 votes = 3542

The two new candidates nominated by MVCI and the Board – Tom Bonville and Jim Fanning were supported by us and the two incumbents were supported by the Board and MVCI.

If you remove the 1510 MVCI votes from the two current members of the Board and added our owner proxies (1360 +-) to the new candidates - the new candidates would have won (just like last year with MVCI voting against owner wishes for the current President). We must seek to prevent MVCI (B-shares from voting for A members and A shares voting for B shares) in the future.

The following motions/requests were made from the floor by owners and were rejected by the Board and MVCI votes: (Remember the Board had 4548, MVCI had 1510 (1500 B shares plus owning 5 weeks) and we had 1360 proxies)

1. Motion to allow all our proxies to be counted: 6112 against 1412 for (if passed this would allow all our 1360 proxies) Rejected

2. Motion to accept the meeting rules 6132 for 1392 against ((we objected asking for the ability to record & or video tape the meeting and the Board refused)

3. Motion to approve the agenda 6178 for 1382 against

4. Motion to amend and correct the 2009 minutes to reflect an error in the vote count as reported in the minutes Rejected ( A letter from last years election judge asked for clarification as to why the results as reported and verified by the judges at the meeting were reported differently in the minutes). Rejected

5. Motion to amend and correct the 2010 Special meeting minutes to reflect the statement from GM Corey Guest when asked by a member whether or not he contacted Aruba Today newspaper regarding the removal of our paid advertisement and his statement at the Special meeting was NO and in court on April 23, 2010 when asked by the judge he stated YES he did make the call. Rejected

6. Motion to remove the paid MVCI parliamentarian as a potential conflict. Rejected

7. Motion that a proposed By Law amendment be presented to Owners which will insure that increases in total yearly fees billed to Owners including maintenance fees, reserves, assessments, utility/storm recovery, special charges or any other costs cannot be increased in excess of a total of 7.5% from the prior year without a majority vote of all the A members. (this would have put a cap unless approved by owners on increases in fees over 7.5%) Rejected

8. Motion that a proposed By Law amendment be presented to Owners that would amend the nomination process By Law Article VI section 6.2 which would prohibit the nomination of any AOC Owner who currently serves on any other MVCI Board of Directors. (this would prevent any Board member from serving on any other MVCI Board) Rejected

9. Motion that a proposed By Law amendment be presented to Owners that would amend the nomination process By Laws Article VI section 6.2 which would enable any owners name to be placed in nomination for any vacancies on the Aruba Ocean Club Board of Directors if supported by written communications including emails from Owners representing a minimum of 50 owner weeks at the Aruba Ocean Club. (this would have opened the nomination process to others not nominated by the current Boards nomination committee) Rejected


Some additional highlights from the meeting.

1. The Board noted with a slide presentation that through May 15, 2010 that they have spent the total of $183,372 (or $16.33 per unit week) to stop our efforts seeking the ability to allow owner to owner contact.

They again stated that only one person was responsible and that person wanted the owner information to be shared with the public and potentially telemarketers. Owners at the meeting challenged this statement and I stated that is was an outrageous waste of owner funds and they knew that this was not one individual but over 1000 owners and we did not want the contact information made public. We even had asked that they just provide our Concerned Owner contact information to all owners.

Leonard Kennedy has reviewed the legal bills and is requesting the Board to review them again. He will be providing a report in the near future. Every owner will be shocked on how and why the funds were spent.

A Brighter Outlook ?

In spite of all the curve balls throw at the AOC Concerned Owners, yes there is a bright spot. Both Marriott International and the AOC Board have now shown a willingness to meet to discuss our issues.

The AOC Board was presented with numerous questions including the 25 questions from Concerned Owners (also posted on www.aocconcernedowners.com) during the annual meeting and stated that they will be captured in the minutes and respond to.

Since the annual meeting we have had a surge of Owners signing up on www.aocconcernedowners.com and thanks to the efforts of Leonard Kennedy for providing Concerned Owners T shirts we have passed out many more Concerned Owners cards. Both Leonard and I felt very safe during our stay, since MVCI assigned security to watch over us. A true waste of resources!

Thanks to the efforts of the Concerned Owners, the Board and Management our property looks better than it has been for many years. We have paid more than our fair share and welcome these improvements. We will now have another side of our complex with a pool view. The Hotel has started construction of a private pool on the Hotel property in front of the Health Club for their Tradewinds Club guests.

The Board now has asked to settle with the concerned owners and during the next 30 days is working on a proposal which would acknowledge the www.aocconcernedowners.com web site to all other owners in the AOC newsletter and they are planning to expand the www.arubaoceanclub.com web site for all owners with concerned. I am hopeful that the wasting of Owners funds will cease and we can move forward in a positive direction.

In the response to his letter dated May 17, 2010 from Arne Sorenson, President of Marriott International, (which is posted on www.aocconcernedowners.com), I have accepted his offer to arrange a meeting with the Concerned Owners and senior executives of Marriott International and MVCI to discuss our ultimate objectives and seek closure.

We look forward to a settlement with the Board with the notice of the www.aocconcernedowners.com web site in the Boards newsletters and although we may disagree with some of the points noted in Mr. Sorenson’s letter I am hopeful that we can reach closure here also. I still believe he his only hearing from his MVCI division with their spin. Now after requesting this for over one year we have an opportunity to work together in a positive spirit and try to rebuild trust in the Marriott Brand.

Please share your questions, comments etc. Thanks again for you continued support. Allan


Allan S. Cohen
9613 Eldwick Way
Potomac, Maryland 20854
e-mail: C20854@aol.com
301-299-4835 Fax
240-462-5000 Cell
301-299-2118 Home

I don't know how the AOC board would describe the meeting, but it seems only fair for someone to post the meeting minutes here when they are available. Paul Harvey might describe this as "the rest of the story".

Otherwise all that will be available to everyone is one person's view. With both "sides" relating their story of the meeting, we should be able to get a better picture of what actually went on.

seems like a reasonable request

rickxylon said:

I don't know how the AOC board would describe the meeting, but it seems only fair for someone to post the meeting minutes here when they are available. Paul Harvey might describe this as "the rest of the story".

Otherwise all that will be available to everyone is one person's view. With both "sides" relating their story of the meeting, we should be able to get a better picture of what actually went on.

Click to expand...

hopefully some other owners that attended the session will provide some feedback, I am pleased that there will be a meeting

rickxylon said:

I don't know how the AOC board would describe the meeting, but it seems only fair for someone to post the meeting minutes here when they are available. Paul Harvey might describe this as "the rest of the story".

Otherwise all that will be available to everyone is one person's view. With both "sides" relating their story of the meeting, we should be able to get a better picture of what actually went on.

Click to expand...

Don't forget who did not want the meeting taped.The offfer was on the table.

The best news is the meeting

It is SOP (standard operating procedure) for each Annual Meeting to require a new Proxy from owners. I would not view that requirement as in any way infringing on the rights of the owners or an attempt to block the use of the voting rights. Once again not following standard and easily met rules based on both on resort documents and applicable laws is taken as a slap against the minority rather than the need to handle things correctly by the Board/Management. As long as the dissidents want to portray themselves as victims rather than taking the necessary legally correct steps this will likely continue to be a costly exercise in futility. I am encouraged that the two sides plan to meet as that is most likely the best way this will actually be hammered out and end the costs to both sides. Letting it go to court would cost far more and neither side would be guaranteed an outcome they would be satisfied with.

Good luck with the meeting(s) and here's hoping things can finally be put to bed with a workable settlement on both sides.