# IMPORTANT!  We have a Tugger running for the WKORV BOD!



## DeniseM (Jan 4, 2010)

*For those who want to cut to the chase, please see page 3 - post #69,  for an example of how Jeff and I marked our ballots. - DeniseM*

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*I am extremely pleased to announce that TUG's own j4sharks (Jeff Hyman) is officially a candidate for the WKORV Board of Directors!* 

After the last election was rescheduled because of the fiasco with the late mailing of proxies, Jeff was able to get on the ballot for the Feb. election which will be Feb. 25, 2010.  I asked Jeff to write a little statement to introduce himself, and I am sure he will be happy to answer questions as well:



> Originally Posted by j4sharks
> I have been a WKORV owner for 3+ years. I am a business attorney at Apple Inc in Cupertino, and was a business litigation attorney for many years prior to working at Intel and now Apple.
> 
> My family loves WKORV, but like many owners we are frustrated by the huge MF increases over the past several years. I understand that some of the increases were caused by matters beyond the Board and Starwood's control (e.g. utility costs and local taxes); however, I look at how Marriott is able to run a very nice resort down the beach with MF's that remain about 30% lower and without the huge annual rates of increase.
> ...


----------



## l2trade (Jan 4, 2010)

This is great news!!!  Thank you and best of luck Jeff!


----------



## Ken555 (Jan 4, 2010)

Fantastic news! Good luck, Jeff! (Once you're on the Board, perhaps you can convince them to install a few iMacs around the resort...)


----------



## j4sharks (Jan 4, 2010)

Thanks everyone.  

In order for this candidacy to work, of course, owners need to vote.  

So, pls consider voting for me when your proxy arrives by mail, and sending it back to Starwood promptly.


----------



## Troopers (Jan 4, 2010)

You'll have my vote.


----------



## Henry M. (Jan 4, 2010)

Jeff:

I appreciate your thoughtful posts here TUG and I fully agree with your attitude towards Starwood and SVO. They are not out to get us, but we do need to participate in the process constructively. I think you represent my position well so you have my vote too. I hope to see the proxy soon. 

Henry


----------



## Fredm (Jan 4, 2010)

Jeff, thank you for volunteering your services  

Can you briefly describe the application process? 
Was it difficult to do?

Thanks again!


----------



## Stricky (Jan 4, 2010)

Is there a free iPod Touch for every Tugger that votes for him?

J/K
Good luck.


----------



## pharmgirl (Jan 4, 2010)

j4sharks said:


> Thanks everyone.
> 
> In order for this candidacy to work, of course, owners need to vote.
> 
> So, pls consider voting for me when your proxy arrives by mail, and sending it back to Starwood promptly.



will it be possible to vote via internet?  last time proxies were very late and unless returned with overnight mail - too late

This is great news - thanks for being a candidate


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 4, 2010)

If you received your proxie late, you can FAX it to Starwood.


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 4, 2010)

Fredm said:


> Jeff, thank you for volunteering your services
> 
> Can you briefly describe the application process?
> Was it difficult to do?
> ...



I'm not Jeff, but I asked the same thing and he did not go through a screening process - he looked up the local statute that allows owners to be placed on the ballot upon request and sent Starwood a message quoting the statute and requesting that he be placed on the next ballot.  

Which makes me question the validity of the screening process that Starwood has been using since the resort opened.....


----------



## Stefa (Jan 4, 2010)

pharmgirl said:


> will it be possible to vote via internet?



This is Starwood we are talking about.


----------



## Ken555 (Jan 4, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> I'm not Jeff, but I asked the same thing and he did not go through a screening process - he looked up the local statute that allows owners to be placed on the ballot upon request and sent Starwood a message quoting the statute and requesting that he be placed on the next ballot.
> 
> Which makes me question the validity of the screening process that Starwood has been using since the resort opened.....



If this wasn't so serious, it would be funny. I guess it takes a lawyer to get Starwood to back down.


----------



## Fredm (Jan 4, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> I'm not Jeff, but I asked the same thing and he did not go through a screening process - he looked up the local statute that allows owners to be placed on the ballot upon request and sent Starwood a message quoting the statute and requesting that he be placed on the next ballot.
> 
> Which makes me question the validity of the screening process that Starwood has been using since the resort opened.....



Well, that seems easy enough.
Now, he need the votes.

I thought Jeff wrote a good ballot statement.


----------



## osman (Jan 4, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> *I am extremely please to announce that TUG's own j4sharks (Jeff Hyman) is officially a candidate for the WKORV Board of Directors!*



This is fantastic news! Jeff, you've got my vote!

Does anyone know when the proxies will be sent out?

--Osman


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 4, 2010)

Jeff said they are currently at the printer.


----------



## clsmit (Jan 4, 2010)

Hope my WKORV purchase finishes in time for me to vote! Good luck!


----------



## LisaH (Jan 4, 2010)

Fantastic Jeff! I don't own at WKORV but I have a friend who owns two weeks there. I will let her know and ask her to vote for you.

Go Jeff (and go Apple )!!!


----------



## Westin5Star (Jan 4, 2010)

Jeff,

Thank you for volunteering for this.  I will be voting for you as well!

Jody

BTW, can you work on getting us a swim up bar at WKORV???


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 4, 2010)

Jeff - you have my vote.  I know some non-TUG Owners - I will also tell them.

This is very good news - getting enough people to vote will be a challenge.  Tuggers should come up with ideas to get the vote out to WKORV Owners.

To all other Tugger Friends - sorry to be gone so long - things have been crazy (as forewarned) and got even crazier.


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 4, 2010)

Hi David - nice to "see" you! 

Jeff will actually be on the ballot and there will be a Bio./statement that he wrote included in the mailing and that should help.  Any ideas about reaching out to other owners?


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 5, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> Hi David - nice to "see" you!
> 
> Jeff will actually be on the ballot and there will be a Bio./statement that he wrote included in the mailing and that should help.  Any ideas about reaching out to other owners?



Yep -it has been a long time for someone who avg'd 2-3 posts per day - lol
Glad Jeff found this method to get onto the BOD - and has the time.

Jeff - as I stated before - WKORV BOD needs transparency and the best way to achieve this is too create an Owner-Owner communication method.

Something I did for WSJ was to contact people selling and renting on RedWeek - I got a note from RW to stop (slap on the wrist), but no until I contacted most of them.

If people here are RW members - they could break it down into groups as to stay below the radar.  I guess this could work for the other TS rental/sales sites.

If there was enough lead time - Tuggers could hand out info to other WKORV Owners while staying there.

Others?


----------



## Troopers (Jan 5, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> Any ideas about reaching out to other owners?



Maybe FredM and James1975NY can spread the word to their clients...


----------



## Henry M. (Jan 5, 2010)

Over the years of going to WKORV I have met a lot of people and quite a few do not frequent TUG. I already wrote to all the owners I know outside of TUG giving them Jeff's introductory statement and pointing them to this discussion. The only recourse I know to get to other owners is to have everyone here to contact everyone they know.

I suspect there is quite a bit of apathy out there so even a few extra votes from a grass roots effort like the one going on here can go a long way. Just look at your own local politics. All it takes is a few passionate people to really canvass their friends to get local measures passed. This works best when only a small percentage of the population votes. If most of those that vote have been made aware of your cause and you can get your allies to just show up at the ballot, then you are more likely to win even against opposition with deeper pockets but less organization.


----------



## pharmgirl (Jan 5, 2010)

is the meeting date known if there will be a meeting.  We will be there week of Jan30th and would attend if then


----------



## thinze3 (Jan 5, 2010)

As an outsider looking in _(one who would like to return to WKORV again very soon on another direct trade with a Tugger :ignore: ) _, may I suggest that a similar thread be started on TS4Ms.com and Redweek.com?


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 5, 2010)

Since I own at North, I suppose I can't vote for you, but I'm sending good thoughts your way.

Good luck!!

Lisa


----------



## Fredm (Jan 5, 2010)

Troopers said:


> Maybe FredM and James1975NY can spread the word to their clients...



Absolutely...


----------



## j4sharks (Jan 5, 2010)

Thanks for all the words of encouragement.  

Annual Meeting II, the Sequel, is set for Feb 25, I am told.


----------



## califgal (Jan 5, 2010)

Fantastic news!!  I know 2 owners who are not on TUG so I will email them.  One, owns 16 weeks at WKORV.  This this a dumb question, but do you get a vote for each week owned?  I would think so, since those weeks could have potentially been owned by 16 different people.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 5, 2010)

emuyshondt said:


> Over the years of going to WKORV I have met a lot of people and quite a few do not frequent TUG. I already wrote to all the owners I know outside of TUG giving them Jeff's introductory statement and pointing them to this discussion. The only recourse I know to get to other owners is to have everyone here to contact everyone they know.
> 
> I suspect there is quite a bit of apathy out there so even a few extra votes from a grass roots effort like the one going on here can go a long way. Just look at your own local politics. All it takes is a few passionate people to really canvass their friends to get local measures passed. This works best when only a small percentage of the population votes. If most of those that vote have been made aware of your cause and you can get your allies to just show up at the ballot, then you are more likely to win even against opposition with deeper pockets but less organization.



A potential problem (if I understand corectly) is those that turn thier proxy in that allows someone else (existing BOD member?) to control their vote.  I do not recall what happens when no proxy is turned in (as I suspect is the majority of the cases) - does this vote also go to the controlling BOD member?


----------



## Henry M. (Jan 5, 2010)

You can write on your proxy how you want to vote and it has to be voted that way. You can also choose to let the board member as he sees fit, but that is your choice. I don't know how the bylaws are written to handle the proxies that are not turned in.


----------



## ginja (Jan 5, 2010)

*I went to the HOA meeting in Dec. - here is some info*

I lost a day on the beach in Maui to attend the HOA - N meetings in Dec. here is some information you might want to know. There are 5 HOA board members for each property, until this last year ALL 5 HOA - North board members were Starwood Employees! This was probably because it was still being sold when they formed the first HOA. Right now there are 2 Owners on the Board but still 3 Starwood employees. This new proxy vote will add a 3rd Owner to the board so at least it will be tilted towards owners. I met with the 2 HOA - N  board members who are owners, they are nice and very concerned with all of the issues that affect us with price increases. They seem to be heading in the right direction with trying to cut cost where they can (example:replacing regular light bulbs with energy efficient ones). Energy costs are one of the major expenses of running the resort. They are fighting the Maui tax issue and all money in dispute is in an "escrow" account so it is being paid by us but isn't in the Maui governments hands until courts decide the issue. Some expenses that are a huge problem for the resort are also just a general a problem for the country, example: Insurance. I voiced my complaint that we need better communication from Starwood and the Board about relevant issues instead of just being shocked once a year when we recieve our MF bills. They agreed that there needs to be more communication  between the owners and Starwood/and the HOA and are going to try to resolve it. Let me know if you have any questions I can try to answer them as best I can form having attended the meetings.


----------



## James1975NY (Jan 5, 2010)

Troopers said:


> Maybe FredM and James1975NY can spread the word to their clients...



I can certainly share the information!


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 6, 2010)

While few people read it - I posted info on RedWeek's WKORV forum.


----------



## califgal (Jan 6, 2010)

Hopefully all of us reaching "a few people" spreading the word will mulitply and get Jeff elected!


----------



## l2trade (Jan 6, 2010)

IMHO, it will take more than energy efficient lightbulbs to get control of MFs.

I heard about another Starwood resort board meeting where the HOA spent a bunch of time talking about replacing all grass with artificial turf and exploring installation of solar panels.  While it might be PC to become 'green' overnight, most of these projects do not yield ROI as an early adopter.  These are added expenses in the near/medium term, not savings.  Our HOA boards should spend more time focusing on cutting the big expenses without sacrificing quality.  This requires scrutiny and better oversight of Starwood management when approving all the budget line items.  It requires actively engaging in resolving the delinquency issues, even if doing so conflicts with Starwood new sales activities.  And, it requires demanding better answers to owners compaints since happy owners = greater resort resale values.  

We need well informed, honest and talented owner/advocates on these HOA boards.  This tugger running for WKORV sounds very well qualified IMHO.  I hope it is the first of many tuggers to get involved and help fix our owner concerns.


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 12, 2010)

Just bumping this important info. up!


----------



## Srqbird (Jan 15, 2010)

*Received proxy today*

Proxies arrived in today's mail.  We're casting our vote for Jeff.

Our thks to Jeff & to tuggers for letting us know he is a candidate.


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 15, 2010)

Srqbird - Welcome to TUG and thanks for voting for Jeff!!


----------



## pharmgirl (Jan 15, 2010)

Srqbird said:


> Proxies arrived in today's mail.  We're casting our vote for Jeff.
> 
> Our thks to Jeff & to tuggers for letting us know he is a candidate.



When is proxy due?  hope we will have enough time unlike the last vote!!!


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 15, 2010)

pharmgirl said:


> When is proxy due?  hope we will have enough time unlike the last vote!!!



It has to be received by Wed., Feb. 24th, which seems odd to me, because the meeting is the NEXT day!  

I guess that means they just throw them away and don't really count them....  :rofl:

BTW - interesting difference between Jeff's statement and the other two candidates' statements.  Jeff's states his goals and objectives and the other two read like brief resumes.  I'm guessing the other two are the candidates hand-picked by Starwood.


----------



## j4sharks (Jan 15, 2010)

I have not seen the proxy packet yet.  I did have a thought ... perhaps ya'll should put your initials in the margin of the paper near where you indicate your vote.  That way, should an audit of ballots ever be conducted, you would have a way of knowing if your actual vote was counted.


----------



## lamarjames (Jan 15, 2010)

My first post (new to TUG) and quite a novice when it comes to these matters.  I own, and will be at, WKORV for the period of 20/20 through 3/6/.  Is there a way that I can attend the meeting and vote?


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 15, 2010)

You should receive your ballot in the mail this week and you must vote by mail.

You can, of course, attend the meeting and you will receive that info. also.  Strangely enough, they hold the meeting at the Westin Maui Hotel and not at the TS, although there are plenty of meeting rooms at the TS!  If you are at the TS that week, you will never know there is a meeting going on - they make no attempt to publicize it at the resort.

And....Welcome to TUG!


----------



## sueann3 (Jan 15, 2010)

Is anyone going to this meeting in February - Jeff are you going? I'd like to give my proxy to someone who will be there in person. I'd also like that person to take their own "minutes" of what happened at the meeting. 

I'm new to the forum but have been following this thread since I got my crazy bill...finally logged in to chime in.


----------



## Troopers (Jan 15, 2010)

Got my proxies (times two) yesterday.

My two votes go to Jeff.


----------



## Troopers (Jan 15, 2010)

j4sharks said:


> I have not seen the proxy packet yet.  I did have a thought ... perhaps ya'll should put your initials in the margin of the paper near where you indicate your vote.  That way, should an audit of ballots ever be conducted, you would have a way of knowing if your actual vote was counted.



FYI, the proxies have owner's name printed on them.


----------



## j4sharks (Jan 16, 2010)

Sadly, I will not be in Maui for the meeting.  (Not so sad about the meeting, but sad to be working in the rainy Bay Area rather than enjoying Maui.)  So, I will be awaiting an update from any TUGers in attendance.


----------



## Darwin (Jan 16, 2010)

Jeff you got our two votes.  :whoopie:


----------



## pharmgirl (Jan 16, 2010)

another one for Jeff!


----------



## Pedro (Jan 16, 2010)

Just filled my ballot out and I put it in the mail this morning.


* * * Vote for Jeff * * *


----------



## j4sharks (Jan 16, 2010)

Just cast my vote too!

Thanks for all your support and confidence.

I feel like we should all dip a finger in purple ink to celebrate this momentous first step of democracy as WKORV owners.


----------



## clsmit (Jan 17, 2010)

Argggh. Looks like my unit won't close fast enough to vote. I may have to write in/email in if it comes in at the last minute. Sometimes it's not good to have a common name....


----------



## Henry M. (Jan 18, 2010)

Just mailed off a couple of more votes your way, Jeff.


----------



## lamarjames (Jan 18, 2010)

Still new to TUG and learning; Jeff I did though mail out my vote for you.  Best of luck!!!!!1


----------



## osman (Jan 18, 2010)

*Proxy questions*

I just got my proxy cards. I plan to vote for Jeff in section two of the yellow card, but I'm not sure what to do about the following items:
1. Should I enter Jeff's name as the proxy holder on the blue and yellow cards?
2. On the green card, what are the pros and cons of allowing the Vacation Plan Board to cast a vote for my apartment?

--Osman


----------



## Westin5Star (Jan 18, 2010)

I am a little late because I was on a Caribbean cruise last week but...

I voted for Jeff too!


----------



## Pedro (Jan 18, 2010)

osman said:


> I just got my proxy cards. I plan to vote for Jeff in section two of the yellow card, but I'm not sure what to do about the following items:
> 1. Should I enter Jeff's name as the proxy holder on the blue and yellow cards?
> 
> 
> --Osman


Jeff mentioned in an earlier post that he was not going to be able to attend the meeting, so he shouldn't be the proxy holder.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## jarta (Jan 18, 2010)

Pedro,   ...   You are correct.  You don't give the proxy to someone who won't attend.  However, the HOA Board, as proxy holder, has to vote the proxies just as they are told to do by the markings on each proxy.   ...   eom


----------



## DanCali (Jan 18, 2010)

Welcome back, jarta


----------



## dyi27308 (Jan 18, 2010)

*proxy questions*

I am still confused.  On the blue form, under Designation of Proxy Holder, what box should be checked?

On the Yellow form, under the same heading, what box should be checked?

And on the green form, under Acknowledgement of Proxy, what box should be checked?  

This is of course to help Jeff out.   Thanks


----------



## DavidnRobin (Jan 19, 2010)

finally got mine - voted for Jeff.

Jeff - I hope you can manage to get transparency from the Board to the Owners.


----------



## SDKath (Jan 19, 2010)

Nothing here yet.  Waiting and waiting!!  K


----------



## Troopers (Jan 19, 2010)

SDKath said:


> Nothing here yet.  Waiting and waiting!!  K



Wait a second here...are you a new owner at WKORV and I missed it?

If so, I hope you got yourself a OFD unit.


----------



## SDKath (Jan 19, 2010)

Troopers said:


> Wait a second here...are you a new owner at WKORV and I missed it?
> 
> If so, I hope you got yourself a OFD unit.



No, never mind.  Just ignore my post.  I forgot that you only get to vote if you own there.     Blonde moment....

K


----------



## LisaRex (Jan 19, 2010)

I own at north and also got a second round of ballots. Since there are three different boards, can someone tell me which specific board Jeff is running for?  I believe one of the associations is shared by north and south...


----------



## Troopers (Jan 19, 2010)

LisaRex said:


> I own at north and also got a second round of ballots. Since there are three different boards, can someone tell me which specific board Jeff is running for?  I believe one of the associations is shared by north and south...



I sent mine in already but his name is pre-printed as a candidate along with two others.


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 19, 2010)

I'm not sure if this is right, but this is how I marked my proxies:

*Blue *- √-"No proxy holder - proxy to be used for quorum purposes only."

*Yellow -* 
Section I - left it blank - the default is "The Board of Directors as a whole, to be voted as decided by a majority of the board."

Section II - √-Jeff Hyman​
*Green -* √-"I do not want the Vacation Plan Board to cast the vote of my apartment at the Condominium Association's Annual Meeting."

I am not going to mail it until tomorrow so I am open to other suggestions about the proxy votes.

*Since each proxy is different, and has different choices, I am unsure about the best way to mark them.


----------



## jarta (Jan 20, 2010)

DeniseM,   ...   I do not have the proxy form in front of me.  Thus, it is hard to comment.  But, what you have done does not seem correct and, in fact, seems inconsistent.  

*Please PM Jeff Hyman to see what he says about what you have done.  Then, post his instructions here.  He's the one who is running and must have seen the proxy by now.*

I think you want the proxy to count in the election - not just for quorum purposes.  Also, if the "Vacation Plan Board" is the WKORV HOA, you want the vote to be cast by them - unless Jeff has arranged for someone else to cast his votes.    ...   eom


----------



## SteveCA (Jan 20, 2010)

*Why no bio for Jeff?*

I just got my proxy and found it strange that the other two candidates have bios while Jeff only has an objective statement. I worry that non-tuggers will shy away from voting for Jeff because of this omission. I for one would always want to know a person's background before voting for them. If I hadn't seen the posts on this forum, I would never have voted for Jeff based on an objective statement because an objective is nice, but I need to have faith in a person's experience and background (and frankly, lack of connection to Starwood) to get my vote.

 Jeff, did you leave your background off or was it truncated?


----------



## j4sharks (Jan 20, 2010)

Uggh!  The first attack on my campaign strategy.  

So, here is the deal.  I put myself on the ballot, since I was not one of the Starwood-selected candidates.  By law, I was entitled to a 100-word candidate statement.  Evidently, Starwood allows its hand-picked candidates to be a bit more verbose in their statements.  With only 100 words at my disposal, I decided to hit a couple themes that might resonate with voters who are concerned about sky-rocketing MFs and whether anyone is looking out for the owners' best interests on the BOD.  I suspected, correctly, that the other statements would be silent on those points.  So, it was going to be dueling bios (some unknown lawyer versus some unknown banker versus some unknown property manager), or two dueling bios versus someone saying something that might strike a nerve.  I went for the latter option.  We'll see if it works, right?

Cheers,

Jeff


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 20, 2010)

Jeff - can you please comment on my post above about how to mark the 3 proxies?  It's unclear to me.  Since all 3 proxies have different choices, I'm not sure how to proceed.


----------



## califgal (Jan 20, 2010)

> Jeff - can you please comment on my post above about how to mark the 3 proxies? It's unclear to me. Since all 3 proxies have different choices, I'm not sure how to proceed.



I second this request.  We don't want to mark our proxies incorrectly.  We want all of our votes for Jeff to count!


----------



## gregb (Jan 20, 2010)

I have the proxies for WKORV-N here and we are not voting for any board members.  This means that Jeff is running only for the South units board.  Can someone say which proxy his name appears on?

Greg


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 20, 2010)

Greg - It is for WKORV - not WKORVN - is that what you are asking?


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 20, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> Jeff - can you please comment on my post above about how to mark the 3 proxies?  It's unclear to me.  Since all 3 proxies have different choices, I'm not sure how to proceed.



Jeff has responded and he is clarifying some things with Starwood and will get back to us.

BTW - Jeff thought the directions were unclear as well, and he's even an attorney   So it's not just moi!


----------



## gregb (Jan 20, 2010)

*Assoc of Appt Owners ORVN proxy "Gotcha!"*

I am just reading the proxy for the "Association of Apartment Owners of Ocean Resort Villas North", and I believe there is an "interesting Gotcha!" in it.  It says that by signing the proxy I give the board a right to "represent me" ... "unless owners of a majority of the interests in my apartment elect to cast the vote for that apartment themselves."  I read this to mean that the only way I get to have a say in how the apartment votes is if I can contact the other 51 owners that were randomly assigned the same unit on their title as I was, and get at least half of them to agree to join my vote.    WOW.  How does one even begin to find and contact the other owners of "your unit"?  This seems to make it nearly impossible to have a meaningful input via a vote.  Has anyone else noticed this?

Greg


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 20, 2010)

gregb said:


> I am just reading the proxy for the "Association of Apartment Owners of Ocean Resort Villas North", and I believe there is an "interesting Gotcha!" in it.  It says that by signing the proxy I give the board a right to "represent me" ... "unless owners of a majority of the interests in my apartment elect to cast the vote for that apartment themselves." Has anyone else noticed this?



Yes - I believe it is the same on the WKORV Ballot - I don't know if you saw my post above, or not, but I marked it:



> Green - √-"I do not want the Vacation Plan Board to cast the vote of my apartment at the Condominium Association's Annual Meeting."


  Is that one of your choices?


----------



## gregb (Jan 20, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> Greg - It is for WKORV - not WKORVN - is that what you are asking?



I understand he is running for the South side, so his name does not show up on our proxies for the North side.  But he is running for the board of which one of the three South associations?  That is, does his name appear on proxy for the "Ocean Resort Villas Vacation Owners Association" (yellow), the "Ocean Resort Master Association" (blue) or the "Association of Apartment Owners of Ocean Resort Villas", (green).  (I am inferring the names and colors for the associations for the South side from my proxies for the North.)

These are three separate associations, and so they should have separate boards.  They may have the same members on each board, but they should still be separate boards.  Notice that the annual meetings are scheduled at different times.

Greg


----------



## gregb (Jan 20, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> Yes - I believe it is the same on the WKORV Ballot - I don't know if you saw my post above, or not, but I marked it:
> 
> Is that one of your choices?



Yes.  Same choice, but no board member to vote for.


----------



## jarta (Jan 21, 2010)

Greg,   ...   It's not an "interesting Gotcha!" inserted into the proxy by Starwood.  It's part of the Hawaiian State condo law:

"§514B-123  Association meetings; voting; proxies.  (a)  If only one of several owners of a unit is present at a meeting of the association, that owner is entitled to cast all the votes allocated to that unit.  If more than one of the owners is present, the votes allocated to that unit may be cast only in accordance with the agreement of a majority in interest of the owners, unless the declaration or bylaws expressly provide otherwise.  There is majority agreement if any one of the owners casts the votes allocated to that unit without protest being made by any of the other owners of the unit to the person presiding over the meeting before the polls are closed."

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0514B/HRS_0514B-0123.htm   ...   eom


----------



## Denise L (Jan 21, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> Jeff has responded and he is clarifying some things with Starwood and will get back to us.
> 
> BTW - Jeff thought the directions were unclear as well, and he's even an attorney   So it's not just moi!



Okay, I am just opening the envelopes and getting ready to vote, so I am waiting for the post that tells me how to fill out the forms.  My instinct is to vote:

Blue:  No proxy holder
Yellow:  no clue as to section I (so would leave it blank), Jeff in section II
Green:  no clue

Why do they have to make it so complicated?  If I am designating the board or vacation plan folks to vote, I want to know what we are voting on!


----------



## gregb (Jan 21, 2010)

jarta said:


> Greg,   ...   It's not an "interesting Gotcha!" inserted into the proxy by Starwood.  It's part of the Hawaiian State condo law:
> 
> http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0514B/HRS_0514B-0123.htm   ...   eom



Jarta,  Thanks for the comment and the link.  What I find interesting is that the Condo rules seem to be written for a residential condo, not for a time share condo.  My question remains, do I have to contact the TS owners who were randomly assigned the same unit as I was on my title in order to have any say in the votes for the Green Assoc. of Apts Owners?  Or does that text apply only to the people whose names are on my title?

Greg


----------



## jarta (Jan 21, 2010)

Greg,   ...   I am an Illinois lawyer, not a Hawaiian lawyer.  We have nothing similar in Illinois.  But, I think the provision is not really determinative regarding timesharing.  

It seems right out of _Kramer v. Kramer_ where one named on the deed shows up to vote for one person and another owner whose name is also on the deed shows up to vote for someone else.

But, it's Jeff's election.  Maybe he should answer.   ...   eom


----------



## j4sharks (Jan 21, 2010)

Hi All,

First, it's not "my" election -- it's "our" election.  I just volunteered to serve, if elected.

Second, I think the proxies are no model of clarity.  I asked Shawn O'Brien of Starwood for instructions on how to fill them out, and his responses did not shed a ton more light (see our email exchange, below).  Bottom line seems to be, though, that if you mark an XX next to your chosen candidate on the one ballot that includes the BOD candidates, then you should be ok no matter what box you select form the choices about who will hold your proxy.

Good luck!

Jeff
___________________________________________

If the vote of the board on how to vote proxies (which have not selected limited power is not unanimous then it matters as a majority vote or as a weighted vote.

 If the second proxy marks the limited powers it doesn't matter at all because that section directs the proxyholder (including a board held proxy) how to vote the proxy. .

Sent from Blackberry Wireless (its got little itty bitty keys)

----- Original Message -----
From: Hyman Jeff <jnhyman@hotmail.com>
To: O'Brien, Shawn
Sent: Thu Jan 21 17:57:27 2010
Subject: Re: Proxy question

Regarding step 2 in the first two proxies, how does it make a difference based on the option selected?  Can any of those options cause the proxy not be voted for the chosen candidate in the BOD vote?

Thanks,

Jeff


On Jan 21, 2010, at 2:50 PM, O'Brien, Shawn wrote:

>
> Jeff,
>
> I did not spec the colors so I cannot guide you by color but I can guide
> you by the entity.
>
> MASTER
>
> Step 1
> In the upper right hand corner select whether your ownership is annual
> or biennial
>
> Step 2
> Select who your proxy holder is
> The first box is a board held proxy and voting the proxy is decided by a
> majority of the board.
> The second is a board held proxy where each board member gets a weighted
> vote (pain in the butt provision
> The third section is for a true proxy holder meaning someone that goes
> to the meeting in your place and votes.  This person must be present at
> the meeting and physically have your signed proxy.
> The fourth section allows the proxy to be counted for quorum but not
> voted.
>
> Step 3
> The proxy must be signed and if you own it with your wife she must sign
> it as well.
>
>
> VACATION OWNERS ASSOCIATION
>
> Step 1
> Select Annual or Biennial according to your ownership
>
> Step 2
> Select who your proxy holder is
> The first box is a board held proxy and voting the proxy is decided by a
> majority of the board.
> The second is a board held proxy where each board member gets a weighted
> vote (pain in the butt provision
> The third section is for a true proxy holder meaning someone that goes
> to the meeting in your place and votes.  This person must be present at
> the meeting and physically have your signed proxy.
>
> Step 3.
> This is the limiting powers of the proxy.  This directs the proxy holder
> to vote in a specific manner in the election.  Here you will vote by
> putting an "X" next to the person you are voting for director and also
> has the option for a write in candidate. (if you are voting for yourself
> put an "X" next to your name)
>
> Step 4.
> Sign the proxy and if you own with your wife have her sign as well.
>
> APARTMENT OWNERS
>
> In the upper right hand corner select whether your ownership is annual
> or biennial
>
> Step 2
> Select who your proxy holder is
> The first box is a board held proxy and voting the proxy is decided by a
> majority of the board.
> The second is a board held proxy where each board member gets a weighted
> vote (pain in the butt provision
> The third section is for a true proxy holder meaning someone that goes
> to the meeting in your place and votes.  This person must be present at
> the meeting and physically have your signed proxy.
> The fourth section allows the proxy to be counted for quorum but not
> voted.
>
> Step 3
> The proxy must be signed and if you own it with your wife she must sign
> it as well.
>
> The first box is a board held proxy and voting the proxy is decided by a
> majority of the board.
>
> The second is a box denying the VO Board the authority to vote the
> proxy. 
> The board held proxy where each board member gets a weighted vote (pain
> in the butt provision.
>
>
> Step 4.
> Sign the proxy and if you own with your wife have her sign as well.
>
>
>
> I hope this helps.
>


----------



## jerseygirl (Jan 22, 2010)

j4sharks said:


> First, it's not "my" election -- it's "our" election.



Wow -- a version of that quote won a historical election in Massachusetts this week.  If you drive a truck, I predict good things!     Good luck!


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 24, 2010)

Bu-bumping!


----------



## washockley (Jan 24, 2010)

*I don't see Jeff on a ballot (in fact, only see proxy material)*



DeniseM said:


> * TUG's own j4sharks (Jeff Hyman) is officially a candidate for the WKORV Board of Directors!*



I have received the proxy mailing for the February meeting, but not any material with specific candidates.  Clarify, please, how to place a vote for Jeff.


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 24, 2010)

Do you own at WKORV?  Or WKORV-North?  Jeff is running for the WKORV BOD.  

There are actually 3 boards - WKORV, WKORV-N, and a joint board.

If you own at WKORV - see post #69 on page 3 of this thread, to see how Jeff and I marked our ballots.


----------



## Ågent99 (Jan 26, 2010)

I own WKORV-N so I'll send good thoughts to Jeff.

How are some of the -N members filling out their ballots?

To gregb (hello Cupertino neighbor...I'm in San Jose) I own weeks 30 and 11.   They split up our "every year" purchase to even and odd years but essentially, we have it every year.  I received two separate ballot mailings.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Feb 25, 2010)

This thread deserves a bump.

If SVO/WKORV BOD is reading- I recommend that they be very careful in making decisions that show they are not acting in the best interest of the HOA because the proxy system is set-up to essentially give them total control of decision making.

To the point - a quorum is not achieved, but a high percentage of proxies that were actually turned in voted for a Owner - that the HOA BOD choose to ignore.

It may be time to change the BOD and SVO's risk/reward perception...


----------



## clsmit (Feb 25, 2010)

Isn't the Board meeting today? What happened?


----------



## oneohana (Feb 25, 2010)

clsmit said:


> Isn't the Board meeting today? What happened?



It is today at 12:30pm HST. I wonder if they check to see if you are a owner here. I may try to sneak in.:ignore:


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 25, 2010)

They won't check - please sneak in and see if Jeff gets elected!

BTW - the meeting is probably at the Westin Maui HOTEL, not the TS!


----------



## oneohana (Feb 25, 2010)

*Mini HOA Update*



DeniseM said:


> They won't check - please sneak in and see if Jeff gets elected!
> 
> BTW - the meeting is probably at the Westin Maui HOTEL, not the TS!



Sorry Jeff, you came in second. They did not give a count total.
Beatrice Case won. They own 13 weeks 

475 weeks are delinquent (4%), 208 which are paid in full. They are talking about a deed back program for those units which are paid. If the owners refuse, they will start the foreclosue process.There is  a possibilty of owners purchasing them for the money owed. 

Marriott has reached a settlement with the county, but the terms are confidential. At the meeting they said that Marriott funded the tax increase with their reserve funds.

The 2 biggest grips wre communnication and room assignments.

Next HOA meeting will be on 12/16/10.


----------



## DanCali (Feb 25, 2010)

oneohana said:


> Sorry Jeff, you came in second. They did not give a count total.
> Beatrice Case won. They own 13 weeks



Bummer, but I can't say I didn't expect it. 

IMO, Starwood would bend over backwards and do everything (legal) within their means to prevent a resale owner, let alone a TUGger, from geting on the Board.

It'd be interesting to hear Jeff's perspecive on this and how the interview process was.

Can anybody enlighten the rest of us with Ms. Case's profile? I wonder what was in there that made her such a compelling candidate.


----------



## gregb (Feb 25, 2010)

Using fuzzy math, 475 delinquent weeks, times $2500 MF equals $1,187,500 total delinquent MF for the year.  280 units times 51 weeks per unit minus the 475 delinquent weeks gives 13805 total current weeks in the resort.   Divide the total delinquency by the number of remaining unit weeks yields about $86 for each owner week to cover the MF of delinquent owners.  Now I don't have my statement with me on the road, so what did they charge us per week to cover the delinquent fees?

Greg


----------



## jarta (Feb 26, 2010)

DanCali,   ...  "Can anybody enlighten the rest of us with Ms. Case's profile? I wonder what was in there that made her such a compelling candidate."

Ok, here goes!  What I found from Internet searches.

Beatrice Case lives on the Monterey Peninsula in Pebble Beach, California with her husband, Nelson Case.  They list themselves as "retired."  He has a link on his Facebook page to the WKORV Facebook page.  I hope the links work:

http://www.facebook.com/people/Beatrice-Case/1440465532

http://www.facebook.com/people/Nelson-Case/678161317 

Nelson Case and Beatrice Case have given substantial political contributions to mostly Republican candidates and causes:

http://www.campaignmoney.com/financ...&rc=446&prevpage=9&cycle=08&city=Pebble+Beach

I believe Nelson Case is the son of long-time NBC radio broadcaster and Armstrong Circle Theatre host, Nelson Case, who was an acquaintance of the author James Michener who wrote "Hawaii."

http://www.michenermuseum.org/bucksartists/artist.php?artist=46

Beatrice Case was (is?) the Secretary of the Board of the Historic Garden League of the Monterey Peninsula:

http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/Pers...rchBox=Beatrice+Case&personName=Beatrice+Case

Beatrice and Nelson Case are reported to own 13 weeks at WKORV.  I get the feeling (my opinion only) that they use them and do not rent them out and are often at the resort.

Jeff Hyman, j4sharks, has a lot of qualifications (I'm not posting them because Jeff seems to be a very private and modest person), mainly with his pro bono work and associations with Apple and Intel.

The existing WKORV board used its discretion to vote the proxies the way it saw fit.  That is what happens, by statute, in most corporate elections.  To wage a proxy war for a seat on a board and to beat the authority of the  sitting board members to vote the unspecified proxies, you must start very early and be very organized.    ...   eom


----------



## oneohana (Feb 26, 2010)

*12/16/10 HOA Meeting*

So who's coming? You guys have a little under 10 months to decide. No complaining about having a short notice of when it is.

The owners present were to say the least very passionate. Just like you guys. I'm sure between the two of you, you can make a difference.

It is amazing how many weeks some of these owners own. One owner looked down on people staying "only 7 days" (even owners). I didn't even want to tell her that I used *options to trade into WKORV. I think if I see her around the pool I'll tell her I traded in with II and got a OF unit. That is about the worst thing one can tell an owner here. 

Come on, you guys just need to buy more weeks.


----------



## LisaH (Feb 26, 2010)

Jeff, I am sorry you lost. I hope Beatrice will reach out to you and other WKOR owners and be a voice for you all. Someone needs to send this thread Link to Beatrice.


----------



## LisaRex (Feb 26, 2010)

Just getting Jeff's name on the ballot was an accomplishment.  I hope the board listened to the passionate outcry from the owners.


----------



## jarta (Feb 26, 2010)

"Just getting Jeff's name on the ballot was an accomplishment."

Yes, it was.  Jeff should be complimented.

"I hope the board listened to the passionate outcry from the owners."

From oneohana's post, the owners who were there owned plenty of weeks and were passionate, too.  Those owners who own multiple weeks are affected by increasing MFs more than someone who owns one week - or someone who trades in from II using a week from a low MF Starwood resort.

The TUG poll on ownership (while a little outdated) shows less than 100 total weeks owned at WKONV and WKORV-N.  Gregb estimates there are over 13,800 weeks at WKORV alone.  You need more preparation to get more votes.   ...   eom


----------



## LisaRex (Feb 26, 2010)

jarta said:


> The TUG poll on ownership (while a little outdated) shows less than 100 total weeks owned at WKONV and WKORV-N.  Gregb estimates there are over 13,800 weeks at WKORV alone.  You need more preparation to get more votes.   ...   eom



Or we need to put public pressure on them to end their monopoly on the HOA.  An expose, if you will.


----------



## jarta (Feb 26, 2010)

An expose of what?  You are implying that the current HOA has done something wrong that needs exposure. Specifically what has the HOA done wrong?   ...   eom


----------



## j4sharks (Feb 26, 2010)

Hi All,

I have still not heard anything from Starwood, so I don't know exactly what happened at the meeting.  Was there a quorum?  Did the designated proxy votes get cast as voted by the owners?  How many proxies did the BOD vote themselves?  What was the finally tally?  In any event, it's certainly a moot point now.  

I do appreciate the support and votes from so many of you.  Hopefully one of you will consider running in the next open election.  Meanwhile, folks should seriously consider exercising their legal rights under Hawaii law to 1) call-in to regular Board meetings, 2) read the meeting minutes and 3) access the HOA membership list and communicate with all owners directly.  You can do any or all of these things, and all you have to do is ask Starwood.  They cannot say no under Hawaii law.

Now, back to getting iPad ready for the world ...

Jeff


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 26, 2010)

Jeff - any chance you would be interested again?  Since we'd have 10 mos., I'd certainly be willing to help get the word out to more owners.


----------



## j4sharks (Feb 26, 2010)

Honestly, I'm not the best suited candidate.  It would be great to find someone with the skills, passion and TIME to really tackle the role.  There is a mountain of information to learn/master at the outset, and then if you really want to be an 'active' BOD member and try to affect change, it will require a time commitment.  For ex, BOD members need to spend half a week in Orlando during the Fall for budget meetings and then also attend the annual meeting in Maui (all at HOA expense).  But there is also a lot of time on the phone with staff and fellow BOD members, plus time to do due diligence on new ideas/proposals, etc and honestly it's a role best left to someone with more free time available in their schedule.


----------



## LisaRex (Feb 26, 2010)

jarta said:


> An expose of what?  You are implying that the current HOA has done something wrong that needs exposure. Specifically what has the HOA done wrong?   ...   eom



The HOA hasn't done anything wrong, but Starwood has successfully locked owners from running for their own HOA by not allowing anyone to be listed on the ballot who hadn't gotten Starwood's seal of approval...until Jeff called them on it by looking up the local laws (which I have a very hard time believing they didn't know about already).  If a writer exposed this practice, along with a chart that showed how MFs increased dramatically, I daresay it would look very bad for Starwood.


----------



## DanCali (Feb 26, 2010)

oneohana said:


> Come on, you guys just need to buy more weeks.



I was tempted to pull the trigger on that OF Center this week on eBay... If I had a crystal ball and knew MFs would stabilize over the next 10 years it would be a no brainer at that price. With the prospect of 20% year over year MF increases I can't see how anyone can do that no matter what view they are guaranteed but, then again, I'm not the biggest gambler in the world.

Congratulations to Beatrice - I hope you she is able to increase transparency and sort out the mess that seems to be happening there.


----------



## oneohana (Feb 26, 2010)

Dan,

I was going to agressively bid on that unit also, but DW wasn't in 100% so I didn't bid. It was tempting though. I could swallow the mf's for a OF unit.


----------



## DanCali (Feb 26, 2010)

oneohana said:


> Dan,
> 
> I was going to agressively bid on that unit also, but DW wasn't in 100% so I didn't bid. It was tempting though. I could swallow the mf's for a OF unit.



You mean you could swallow the MFs NOW... For an OF unit I probably could too but it's aproaching my limit pretty fast. 

What if MFs go to $3000 or $4000... (they are already $3K for OFD)? At a 20% increase a year you can easily get there in 2-3 years... SVO has to do something to stop this cycle or this resort will find itself in dire staits.


----------



## jarta (Feb 26, 2010)

LisaRex,   ...   "Starwood has successfully locked owners from running for their own HOA by not allowing anyone to be listed on the ballot who hadn't gotten Starwood's seal of approval...until Jeff called them on it by looking up the local laws (which I have a very hard time believing they didn't know about already)."

First, the owners were never "locked ... from running" by anyone.  They simply didn't follow Hawaiian law and request to be on the proxy.

Second, Jeff (j4sharks) followed the procedure of Hawaiian law I posted with a comment that anyone who timely sends in his/her name and a statement either gets a name on the proxy or no names go on the proxy.  Jeff followed the statute.  His name was added to the proxy.

The practice as far as I can see is that Starwood follows the law.  Now that Jeff has followed the law it should be easier for some other TUG member to get the name on the proxy.  Jeff said so several posts up from yours.

MF in Hawaii are another thing.  They are very high.  The WKORV board has given the reasons and they have been posted on TUG.  If you have any evidence that the reasons are false, please post it and expose the HOA board.

BTW, there was a report that Marriott has settled with Maui about timeshare assessments.  Next year, Marriott's Maui properties will probably see an - as yet unknown - increase in MF due to higher taxes.  I assume Marriott owners will not be happy about that.   ...   eom


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 26, 2010)

One (big) issue about the election that I have, is that when I contacted the Starwood staff member that is in charge of all elections (before the last election) and asked what the methods were to get on the ballot, he did not reveal that owners could place themselves on the ballot.  He stated that the only other way to be nominated was at the board meeting on the day of election.  So either he is not well-informed regarding the laws regulating elections, or he chose not to proved the information.  

Either way, someone who runs all the BOD elections for Starwood should 1) know local election laws and 2) provide the correct info. when an owner asks.


----------



## DanCali (Feb 26, 2010)

jarta said:


> First, the owners were never "locked ... from running" by anyone.  They simply didn't follow Hawaiian law and request to be on the proxy.



jarta - I'm wondering if you can clarify something on this as someone who is familiar with legal nuances...

I'm curious if what you state above would still be your argument in a (let's say a hypothetical) case where someone sent a letter or email to Starwood saying they want to run for the board and were never put on the ballot because of some unknown screening process.

It seems that your argument is that there was no law violated as long as the person didn't specifically say "I want to be on the proxy"?

We've heard at least suspicions in the past that Starwood employs a screening process for Board candidates. Maybe some older threads even have documentation of this actually happenning to people - I haven't checked. Someone on the Marriott BBS recently opened a thread that they experienced the exact same process for a property not in Hawaii, so it wouldn't be a shocker to me if Starwood does the same. That said, it seems your argument is that, as long as one doesn't cite the exact statute or request in a specific manner, then simply indicating an intent to run for a Board position for a Hawaii property in an unequivocal manner may not be sufficient and Starwood could still (legally) deny their request?


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 26, 2010)

Dan - there are Tuggers who have applied to Starwood via the application process and were rejected.  It's documented.


----------



## l2trade (Feb 26, 2010)

I want to thank Jeff Hyman for running for the HOA and educating many SVO owners in the process of doing so!  I hope more owners get involved in order to improve things for everyone.  One big eye opener for myself, although I guess I've known this all along, is that the financial situation for owners vary greatly.  I've been tempted to purchase WKORV resales in the past.  Considering long term maintenance fee challenges, it is becoming clear to me that owning Hawaii is not in the cards for my future budgets or life circumstances.  What may seem painful to me, may not really mean much to others.  The HOA is the main line of defense in keeping costs affordable without greatly sacrificing quality.  It is only my 'perception' that HOA fees are too high.  I wonder what the board thinks about it and whether bringing costs down is a top priority for them.


----------



## TheUnitrep (Feb 26, 2010)

DanCali said:


> We've heard at least suspicions in the past that Starwood employs a screening process for Board candidates. Maybe some older threads even have documentation of this actually happenning to people - I haven't checked.



In 2005, I made it to the "telephone interview" phase of the WKORV BOD election process.  Shawn O'Brien conducted the interview, which lasted approximately 10 minutes.  

I was never contacted after this, and my name was not included on the ballot I received for the next election.

So yes......a screening process existed in the recent past.  I'm not certain if it still is used though.


----------



## jarta (Feb 26, 2010)

"We've heard at least suspicions in the past that Starwood employs a screening process for Board candidates. Maybe some older threads even have documentation of this actually happenning to people - I haven't checked."

Jeff (j4sharks) was invited to be interviewed/screened by the WKORV HOA.  He never reported back how it went and what he was asked.  Perhaps he could enlighten us.

I assume that anyone who is on the proxy form is interviewed.  I am sure that the WKORV HOA board knows that most of the proxies will be returned with no person checked and without the "for quorum purposes only" checked.  So, they can vote the proxies as they feel is best for the resort.

And, they did.  A well-qualified person was chosen (IMO).  Jeff, another well-qualified person, was not.  Unless Jeff has/had enough proxies where he was specifically designated as the person the HOA board was to cast a vote for, the unmarked proxies will win every time.

This is not an issue unique to Starwood or WKORV.  That's the way it goes whenever a corporate or association board election is held in the US.  Unless the opponents of the board have sufficient proxies, they will be swamped by the ones returned to the board that are unmarked and can be cast as the board sees fit.

Your problem is not with Starwood about this. Your problem is with every State legislature in the US.  This part of the law about corporate and association board elections is, as far as I know, consistent throughout the entire US.

The sitting board always has a great deal to say about who will join them.  If you don't like it, get those proxies returned with a name checked.  And, start organizing early for the next election fight.

One last thing.  Jeff is/was well-qualified.  However, from the time Jeff got on the WKORV proxy, there was no abatement in the unsupported personal accusations of wrongdoing on TUG about Starwood and the WKORV board.  Given that vocal position here, wouldn't that diminish Jeff's chances of being selected?  Anyone on the WKORV board would have a fiduciary obligation to all the WKORV owners- not just TUG members.  I think Jeff would have fulfilled that obligation.  But, others might not be as sure.  People are people.   ...   eom


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 26, 2010)

Clarification:  Jeff was interviewed AFTER he quoted Hawaii law to them, and after he was notified that he would be on the ballot.

In the past, Tuggers who applied using the application sent out to all owners in the standard mailing, were interviewed first, and then were screened, and  then approved or rejected by the BOD or someone - sounds like Shawn O'Brien does the interviews.  See post #118 for one Tugger's personal experience.

Jeff's experience, and previous practice, are clearly not the same.


----------



## DanCali (Feb 26, 2010)

jarta said:


> "We've heard at least suspicions in the past that Starwood employs a screening process for Board candidates. Maybe some older threads even have documentation of this actually happenning to people - I haven't checked."
> 
> Jeff (j4sharks) was invited to be interviewed/screened by the WKORV HOA.  He never reported back how it went and what he was asked.  Perhaps he could enlighten us.
> 
> ...



jarta,

Unfortunately, you either didn't answer, or skillfully deflected my question or if you answered it then the answer was too convoluted for me to understand...

Let me try to simplify my question... The hawaii statute being what it is - if Starwood acts as described in post #118 and screens candidates who demonstrate an interest in being on the Board rather than placing them on the proxy - does this sound legal to you?

In other words - does someone need to come up with the exact words Jeff did (e.g. "I want to be on the proxy") in order to force them to put someone on the ballot and if they say anything else (e.g. "I want to run for the Board") then they can be screened out legally? Or does showing a desire to run for the Board satisfy the Hawaii statute and a behavior on part of Starwood as in post #118 sound fishy to you?


----------



## jarta (Feb 26, 2010)

DanCali,   ...   Here's the portion of the Hawaii statute concerning association elections.

514B-123(h) says:

"h)  With respect to the use of association funds to distribute proxies:

     (1)  Any board that intends to use association funds to distribute proxies, including the standard proxy form referred to in subsection (d)(3), shall first post notice of its intent to distribute proxies in prominent locations within the project at least twenty-one days before its distribution of proxies.  If the board receives within seven days of the posted notice a request by any owner for use of association funds to solicit proxies accompanied by a statement, the board shall mail to all owners either:

         (A)  A proxy form containing the names of all owners who have requested the use of association funds for soliciting proxies accompanied by their statements; or

         (B)  A proxy form containing no names, but accompanied by a list of names of all owners who have requested the use of association funds for soliciting proxies and their statements.

          The statement, which shall be limited to black text on white paper, shall not exceed one single-sided 8‑1/2" x 11" page, indicating the owner's qualifications to serve on the board or reasons for wanting to receive proxies; and

     (2)  A board or member of the board may use association funds to solicit proxies as part of the distribution of proxies.  If a member of the board, as an individual, seeks to solicit proxies using association funds, the board member shall proceed as a unit owner under paragraph (1)."

It's really quite simple if you take the time to read it.  Jeff timely sent in his request and his statement.  So, he had to be put on the standard proxy form with names and the statements (A) or a blank proxy had to be sent out and accompanied by a list of all owners who made a request and and their statements (B).  The standard proxy form is the one everyone could not understand, but it comes from the same section of the statute in (d)(3).

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0514B/HRS_0514B-0123.htm

I'm sorry, Dan, that you post that you think I am trying to deflect the question or not answer it.  The statute itself answers all your questions.  And, it's the same answer I gave you before.  Again, read the statute.   ...   eom


----------



## DanCali (Feb 26, 2010)

jarta said:


> DanCali,   ...   Here's the portion of the Hawaii statute concerning association elections.
> 
> 514B-123(h) says:
> 
> ...



jarta - you just did it again... I guess 40 years or trial work will do that to you!

I asked a simple question - you can answer it with Yes or No or be more specific... but please be more direct. 

The Hawaii statute being what it is - if Starwood acts as described in post #118 and screens candidates who demonstrate an interest in being on the Board rather than placing them on the proxy - does this sound legal (in compliance with the staute) to you?

Again, from your hints/answers above you make it sound like unless you act word for word as in the statute they can turn you down. I can see that interpretation... But in my eyes, if someone indicates a desite to run for the board (which is obvious since some people were actually interviewed), it seems to me that, given the statute, they should be allowed to run...

But then again - I'm not the lawyer... you are.

I agree with LisaRex though... Legal or not this looks fishy and would be great material for some investigative reporter. And if it is not legal they would have a huge PR problem on their hand...


----------



## Ken555 (Feb 27, 2010)

DanCali said:


> I asked a simple question - you can answer it with Yes or No or be more specific... but please be more direct.



Dan,

It's quite hard for any attorney to provide a yes or no answer... especially for someone who's not a client. You know he won't be more specific, so I'd suggest you take his advice and read the statute and make your own conclusions. 

The best way to get a corporation to follow the law, is to follow it yourself. If you want to be on the ballot, just do what Jeff did and you'll end up there. 

Have fun out there!

Ken


----------



## DanCali (Feb 27, 2010)

Ken555 said:


> Dan,
> 
> It's quite hard for any attorney to provide a yes or no answer... especially for someone who's not a client. You know he won't be more specific, so I'd suggest you take his advice and read the statute and make your own conclusions.
> 
> ...



Ken - thanks for the head up on what to expect... Here is where I'm coming from...

jarta responded to Lisa by saying "First, the owners were never "locked ... from running" by anyone. They simply didn't follow Hawaiian law and request to be on the proxy." 

To me, it sounds like the person in post 118 (TheUnitrep) did made a request to run for the Board. To me, that means a "request to be on the proxy." If they were missing a bio, Starwood should have asked for one... To me, it sounds like TheUnitrep was "locked from running" - due to a convenient technicality Starwood did not bother to correct. According to Denise, this is not the only case Starwood screened people out... and this is probably not the only resort where it's being done.

I wanted to hear from jarta (not as a lawyer, but as an owner who is well versed with legal issues and who should also be concerned about this practice) what he thinks of this practice. Too much to hope for? I don't know...

As for me being on the ballot at some resort - that's not in the cards. I'm about to get much busier in April so you'll probably see much less of me on here after the next 4-5 weeks. I'll do my best to keep up with current concerns!


----------



## Ken555 (Feb 27, 2010)

DanCali said:


> To me, it sounds like the person in post 118 (TheUnitrep) did made a request to run for the Board. To me, that means a "request to be on the proxy." If they were missing a bio, Starwood should have asked for one... To me, it sounds like TheUnitrep was "locked from running" - due to a convenient technicality Starwood did not bother to correct.



We don't know what TheUnitrep specifically asked Starwood to do, other than to run for the Board. Assuming Starwood would assist someone meet legal requirements is assuming too much, in my view. If TheUnitrep did request according to the law, and Starwood didn't comply, then obviously there should be some recourse. In other words, don't expect any help from Starwood. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## DanCali (Feb 27, 2010)

Ken555 said:


> We don't know what TheUnitrep specifically asked Starwood to do, other than to run for the Board. Assuming Starwood would assist someone meet legal requirements is assuming too much, in my view. If TheUnitrep did request according to the law, and Starwood didn't comply, then obviously there should be some recourse. In other words, don't expect any help from Starwood.
> 
> Hope this helps.



That's kind of the answer I was expecting from jarta. It's a legitimate answer. I get it. But I disagree with it... I would not expect them to assist with legal requirement per se, but I don't think expecting a "heads up" that a requirement is missing is too much to hope for. Or at least an explanation once someone is disqualified, so they know what to do right next time...

When MFs are $1300 nobody cares about all this stuff and life is good. When MFs are $2500 with no end in sight it's a different story. I realize that if you stick to the letter of the law, maybe they didn't break the law or at most trespassed into a gray area - but, as Lisa suggested, they'd definitely lose in the court of public opinion.


----------



## jarta (Feb 27, 2010)

DanCali,   ...   Unitrep doesn't say what resort he inquired about, how long ago he asked or whether he filed any request in writing that complied with the then-current State procedure for getting on the proxy.

Starwood does not have to hold people by the hand and lead them through the process.  It is just human nature that this would be so - especially for members of TUG, a blog where unsupported allegations of wrongdoing about Starwood and the HOAs at SVO resorts are often made by its members.

I have outlined how the *unique* procedures of Hawaiian law (that were complied with concerning j4sharks) made it easy to get on the proxy.  I posted the law when I looked for and found it after posts complained that it was impossible to get on the WKORV proxy or HOA board.

But, getting on the proxy is only the first step.  Then, the proxies marked for the challenger must outnumber the ones returned in blank to the HOA board.  In every State, where an association board gets an unchecked proxy, it is allowed discretion under State law to vote the unmarked proxies as it feels is best for the resort.  That's why people return proxies in blank.  They trust the judgment of the sitting board members.  In the recent WKORV election, j4sharks just did not get enough votes.

Please stop complaining about things that happened in the past where we do not really know what happened.  We do know that Starwood put j4sharks on the proxy and asked to interview him after he timely sent in the written request and his statement.  Rather than complain and fulminate, start to organize for the next election.  j4sharks has provided a model for future WKORV elections that works to get on the proxy.   ...   eom


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 27, 2010)

> Please stop complaining about things that happened in the past where we do not really know what happened.



jarta - _you_ may not know what happened, but those of us who have been around for awhile have been following this for a long time, and people can complain about it all they want.  If you don't want to read their complaints it's simple - stop reading!

*Past election practice is not a mystery - it was widely discussed here when Jerry applied:*

1)  Jerry (TheUnitRep) received, completed, and returned an application to run for the BOD at WKORV.  That is clearly written notification of intent to run for the BOD.  

2)  He has a phone interview with Shawn O'Brien.

3)  After the interview, he received no further communication from Starwood, and he was not placed on the ballot.

That seems pretty clear to me.  

The only logical assumption is that either Starwood doesn't know the local laws, or they were not following them.  Either one is unacceptable.

It is ludicrous to suggest that an owner has to research local election laws and threaten Starwood with them, to get on the ballot.


----------



## jarta (Feb 27, 2010)

DeniseM,   ...   I posted about complying with then-current State law.

Did all this occur before the statute was recodified in 2006?  From the web site of a Hawaiian attorney specializing in codominium law, Richard Ekimoto: 

"As we have been mentioning for the last few years, the Recodification of the Condominium Property Act will be effective on July 1, 2006. The new Chapter of the Hawaii Revised Statutes will be designated Chapter 514B."

http://hawaiicondolaw.blogspot.com/

His blogspot contains information about Association Meetings.  I do not know if it up to date.  Here's what it said about proxies prior to the 2006 recodification.

http://associationmeetings.blogspot.com/

I am not defending anything Starwood did in the past.  I have no idea whether Starwood violated any then-existing statute - nor do you.

All I know is that I posted the law, j4sharks did what he was supposed to do and Starwood and the WKORV board did what they were supposed to do and put him on the proxy and requested to interview him.

*BTW*, when you posted in post 69 of this thread and altered the first post to direct people to that post 69 where you checked on the proxy that you would *not* let the HOA board vote your proxy, did you arrange for anyone else who would be at the meeting to vote it?  That's the way it happens when you check that box.  You then give someone else the discretion to vote your proxy.  If nobody shows up to vote your proxy, it isn't voted.

I suggest that if you people are serious about electing someone to the WKORV board that you contact a Hawaiian attorney who does condo law (I do not) and start learning the statutes and organizing.  Based on your past and present posts about Starwood and the WKORV board, it is folly to expect more than necessary compliance with the statute from either Starwood or the WKORV board.

When TUG members declare war on Starwood and the HOAs, why should they give you any breaks?  You are their declared enemies.  Get real!  Based upon his actual qualifications (you cared only that Jeff was a TUG member and knew nothing else about who he really is), Jeff had a reasonable chance of convincing the WKORV board that he would be a valuable addition to the board.  IMO, Jeff did not receive much help from the TUG posts while he was a candidate.   ...   eom


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 27, 2010)

jarta said:


> Based upon his actual qualifications (you cared only that Jeff was a TUG member and knew nothing else about who he really is),



Really - so now you are a mind reader, too?  How do you know what I care about?  How do you know what personal communication I have had with Jeff or what I know about him?

BTW - I consulted with Jeff, and marked my ballot the same way he marked his....  

jarta - there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes around here that you are not privy to.  Just because you don't see it posted on TUG, doesn't mean that things aren't discussed privately, and on conference calls.  There is a very active group of Tuggers who are taking action on many issues.  So when you keep posting that we should quit complaining and do something... that's already been in progress for some time, we just see no reason to share everything here.


----------



## jarta (Feb 27, 2010)

"t is ludicrous to suggest that an owner has to research local election laws and threaten Starwood with them, to get on the ballot."

I don't think Jeff made or needed to make a threat.  It's not in his nature.

Since you obviously do not know who Jeff Hyman is, here are a few impressive links:

[Linked deleted per j4sharks (wrong person.)]

http://www.spoke.com/info/p10qUnm/JeffreyHyman

http://www.nylj.com/nylawyer/probono/news/07/022207.html

http://www.cpbo.org/archive/resources/resource1407.pdf

Now Jeff has moved on to an even higher position at Apple:

http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/95014-ca-jeffrey-hyman-76235.html

Sorry, Jeff.  The record is too impressive not to let some people know who they submarined.   ...   eom


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 27, 2010)

> Since you obviously do not know who Jeff Hyman



Obviously?  To whom? Mind reading again?

Of course I checked Jeff out before I announced his nomination on TUG.  However, I would never post outside info. about someone on TUG, without their permission.


----------



## jarta (Feb 27, 2010)

And, I guess I was hallucinating when I got a PM on 2/5 from someone very, very, very involved in getting Jeff on the proxy thanking me for trying to calm the conspiracy buffs who were posting anti-Starwood garbage on TUG while Jeff was awaiting his WKORV interview.

Of course, my warning about possibly hurting Jeff's chances was removed from TUG by someone we all know.  The anti-Starwood garbage from the conspiracy buffs was left on the thread.   ...   eom


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 27, 2010)

jarta - If you are unhappy about the way I have moderated your posts, please contact TUGBrian.  I'm sure he would love to hear from you!

I'm done here....


----------



## Ken555 (Feb 27, 2010)

DanCali said:


> That's kind of the answer I was expecting from jarta. It's a legitimate answer. I get it. But I disagree with it... I would not expect them to assist with legal requirement per se, but I don't think expecting a "heads up" that a requirement is missing is too much to hope for. Or at least an explanation once someone is disqualified, so they know what to do right next time...



I'm not sure why you should expect this, other than it might be the "nice" thing to do. When money is involved, people on all sides get quite defensive, and if you were a Starwood employee managing this process, you would be biased, as well. I'm not aware of any requirement for them to assist. In this instance, I'm a bit in the dark about how Starwood has any right to have an "application" process, unless this is intended to simply assist the existing Board in learning of the credentials of a candidate. And that might be very important, since we all know how difficult it is to get a majority of owners to vote, much less vote for a specific individual. So if a candidate "passed" an internal test of some type, then perhaps they would help with the process. If true, this might be an area of further exploration by those wishing to run in the future. 

Do we know that there was a specific requirement missing from an application? Sorry, I don't recall reading that (but I admit I have not re-read this thread in a while...).

I suspect this is yet another distinction for those resorts managed by the developer. An independent management firm might assist all interested parties in running for the Board in an objective and helpful manner, though I'm speculating here based only on my limited experience with independent condo HOA management firms (I have no direct experience with timeshare HOA management companies).


----------



## DanCali (Feb 27, 2010)

Ken555 said:


> I'm not sure why you should expect this, other than it might be the "nice" thing to do.



Because, to paraphrase Denise, it would be ridiculous to ask owners to research local election laws. Starwood collects the correspondence. The fact that an owner made it to the interview stage implies (to me) that the application was complete. The fact that owner never made it to the ballot looks to me like the Hawaii statute was violated.



Ken555 said:


> Do we know that there was a specific requirement missing from an application? Sorry, I don't recall reading that (but I admit I have not re-read this thread in a while...).



This is what I was trying to get jarta to say but instead of an answer I got quoted the Hawaii statute... I think that what he was implying is that if you don't follow the statute exactly "If the board receives within seven days of the posted notice a* request by any owner for use of association funds to solicit proxies accompanied by a statement*" then it's fine to get disqualified by Starwood. For example, if you respond to their emails saying you want to run, but there is no statement you are disqualified without telling you the actual reason. For all we know, if someone might has said they want to "solicit votes" instead of "proxies" maybe they were disqualified too... This is what I wanted to get a direct answer from jarta about. It seems shady to me if that's what they do when it appears that plenty of people showed an unequivocal interest to run.


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 27, 2010)

I agree, Dan.  If the official notice and application sent out by Starwood does not meet the requirements of the law to declare one's candidacy, you have to ask, why doesn't it?  

Either:  1)  They don't know what the law is, or 2) It's intentional, or 3) They are simply ignoring the law.


----------



## DanCali (Feb 27, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> I agree, Dan.  If the official notice and application sent out by Starwood does not meet the requirements of the law to declare one's candidacy, you have to ask, why doesn't it?
> 
> Either:  1)  They don't know what the law is, or 2) It's intentional, or 3) They are simply ignoring the law.



It's even simpler I think - if they are disqualifying the owner because it doesn't satisfy the letter of the law they should tell that to the owner. Don't help him out if you don't want to but tell them the reason they were disqualified. Otherwise, if an owner demonstrates an unequivocal intent to run (which was the case if people got interviewed for the job) and they are disqualified for other reasons then it looks like they are ignoring the law. 

Where is a lawyer when you need one???


----------



## Ken555 (Feb 27, 2010)

It seems that someone should contact Starwood and _*ask*_ them what the requirements are for running for a Board, and to explain the process. They should provide this information to any who request, at least in some form. Knowing SVN, it won't be comprehensive nor exact.

In addition, it's always good to know the law, so for Hawaii you know a bit more because of Jarta's posts.

At this point it seems we're just spinning wheels...


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 27, 2010)

Ken - I posted about this earlier in the thread - I did contact Starwood about the election process.  I contacted Shawn O'Brien, who is in charge of all Starwood BOD elections, a few months ago.  I asked him what the other methods were, besides the application process, to run for the BOD at WKORV, and he responded that the only other way to be nominated was to nominate yourself at the actual meeting.


----------



## Ken555 (Feb 27, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> Ken - I posted about this earlier in the thread - I did contact Starwood about the election process.  I contacted Shawn O'Brien, who is in charge of all Starwood BOD elections, a few months ago.  I asked him what the other methods were, besides the application process, to run for the BOD at WKORV, and he responded that the only other way to be nominated was to nominate yourself at the actual meeting.



Ah, ok. Thanks. 

That makes sense, in that they need to meet legal requirements for elections, and now we all know how that's done. However, this "application process" seems to be an alternative method.


----------



## jarta (Feb 27, 2010)

Ken555,   ...   As you yourself have pointed out, Starwood is not obligated to help every wingnut that calls and wants to be on the board of an SVO HOA get on the ballot.  That's the way the State statutes are set up.  The way they are set up fosters continuity and prevents undue disruptions on boards that manage properties.  Usually, the sitting board chooses as its candidate someone who thinks like they do.  There is no reason a sitting board will add a dissenting vote willingly.

There will always be dissenters who think they could do a better job than the existing board is doing.  Those dissenters think that fostering continuity is beside the point because they want to throw the rascals out.

But, every State legislature I know of has adopted a system that makes it hard to throw the rascals out - unless there is such a groundswell of discontent that a proxy fight starts.  When it does, the dissenters have to get more proxies than are voted for the board candidate plus the unmarked proxies that the board has discretion to cast for whomever they think will be best for the association.  It makes it hard, but not impossible.

Geez, that's Corporate Law 101.  The dissenters can criticize what happens all they want, but that's the way it is.  Board elections are not beanbag.  I was president and treasurer of 2 non-Starwood HOAs where I live for 6 straight years.  I know they are not beanbag.

Actually, the liberal way that Hawaii allows candidates to get on proxies is quite unusual.  Most State statutes are way more restrictive.  Hawaii is to be applauded for opening up easy access to getting on a proxy.

What dissenters need to do is organize, organize, organize and have their facts in a row to make a compelling case for the dissenters' candidate.

Jeff (j4sharks) was a candidate with many qualifications for the WKORV board.  But, he was also far too modest to trumpet his many qualifications.  He gave no information about how his job experience or life experience would qualify him better than anyone else for the spot.  All he really pointed out is his concern about the increasing MF at WKORV.  All owners are concerned about the increasing MF at WKORV.  The point that must be made is: "I am the person to look over the budget and contracts and get the MFs reduced."

Nonetheless, Jeff got on the ballot (as he had to) and his statement was distributed with the proxies.  He knew that he was walking a tightrope in trying to balance his TUG connections with his obvious qualifications.

This election was always going to be decided by the board's vote of the unmarked proxies.  They asked to interview Jeff.  I have no information that the interview was held - or wasn't held.  But, the proxies were not voted for Jeff.  I have not seen Jeff post that he was unfairly treated by the WKORV board.  However, I doubt Jeff would do that - even if he was.  He appears to be a very classy guy.   ...   eom


----------



## jarta (Feb 27, 2010)

Ken555,   ...   Shawn was right.  Nominations can always be made from the floor during the election meeting.  That is governed by Roberts Rules of Order.

But, they rarely are effective unless the sitting board is disappointed with the person(s) on the proxies and wants someone else to run so that they can cast their votes for that person.  

Usually, the groundswell starts if only one person files to run for a board position during the time alloted and the association generally thinks that person is unacceptable to function with the sitting board.  Association members will turn in ballots marked for a write-in candidate and the person is nominated from the floor by another association member at the meeting.  (I've never heard of anyone so isolated or arrogant as to nominate themself at the meeting.)

Thus, the unacceptable person will lose - even though they were the only one named on the proxy that went out.

As a practical matter, I can't see a nomination from the floor ever succeeding in a timeshare situation where the proxies are already marked.  The proxy can be canceled and a vote cast at the meeting, but it must be canceled by the person giving the proxy attending the meeting.  Otherwise, the proxy stands and is voted as the check marks provide.

Corporate Law 102.   ...   eom


----------



## clsmit (Feb 27, 2010)

*No luck at SBP for Board, either*

My husband applied to be on the board at SBP (original phase) a couple of years ago. We had gotten a letter from SVO asking for nominees. Perhaps in SC they need to ask for owners to serve on the board; I have not investigated the statues. We sent in his resume (MBA, finance guy) and heard nothing. The ones who made the board seemed to be multiple week owners at the resort.


----------



## jarta (Feb 27, 2010)

Not every qualifed person can serve on any board.  There are only so many spots.  WKORV has 13,800 weeks that can be owned.

And what's wrong with the sitting board selecting multiple week-owners for the board?  Aren't they the ones most affected by high MFs and diminishing property values - assuming they don't own so many weeks they own merely to rent and never bother to visit?

Ms. Case won at WKORV and she and her husband, Nelson, are supposed to own 13 weeks at the resort.  Somehow that's a bad thing?  Doesn't she have a larger than normal stake in where her money goes?   ...   eom


----------



## DanCali (Feb 27, 2010)

jarta said:


> Ms. Case won at WKORV and she and her husband, Nelson, are supposed to own 13 weeks at the resort.  Somehow that's a bad thing?  Doesn't she have a larger than normal stake in where her money goes?   ...   eom



That makes sense... except if these are developer purchases (just an assumption) then it can also be argued that if someone spends enough money on buying from the developer 13 weeks they don't necessarily care if annual MFs are $1900 or $2500 even if they pay that amount 13 times. 

I don't know Ms. Case, but given her ownership I assume her family has been successful enough to accumulate that kind of wealth for such a discretionary purchase. I favor Capitalism so more power to them. Nevertheless, if someone buys 13 developer weeks I'd have to ask how savvy are they about the timeshare industry (case in point, jarta, even you bought your HRA and SVV resale)? How enamoured are they with Starwood? Would they be able to become more demanding and/or confrontational, if necessary, if they are not provided with adequate asnwers about important issues such as delinquencies and where the money goes?


----------



## jarta (Feb 27, 2010)

"Nevertheless, if someone buys 13 developer weeks I'd have to ask how savvy are they about the timeshare industry (case in point, jarta, even you bought your HRA and SVV resale)? How enamoured are they with Starwood? Would they be able to become more demanding and/or confrontational, if necessary, if they are not provided with adequate asnwers about important issues such as delinquencies and where the money goes?"

For someone you admittedly don't know much about (like how she acquired her units), you seem quite willing to impugn Ms. Case's ability to represent WKORV's owners based on a series of questions.  Lots of "ifs" there.

[Comment deleted - DeniseM Moderator]

Positing a question with an "if" doesn't make it true.  

Like your ones to me: if Starwood didn't follow the statute, would it have done something wrong?

Questions based upon a hypothetical premise do not prove the hypothetical premise.

Like, if you had an agenda here, would it be to bash Starwood based on unsupported "ifs?"   ...   eom


----------



## DanCali (Feb 27, 2010)

With all due respect, impugn is a very strong word... The only phrase I used was "I'd have to ask" and that's all I meant. People are still allowed to be skeptical of their representatives and voice any concerns they have... Starwood has already caused many of us to be concerned about their motives. I do not want to judge Ms Case, certainly not before she had a chance to be in that role. You were suggesting that because she has more money than most at stake, she cares more - isn't that a big assumption too? You implied that a multiple week owner on the board can be good for others. I responded by saying that there are several reasons why that may not be the case. Time will tell how good having Ms. Case on the Board is for other owners.


----------



## oneohana (Mar 1, 2010)

Dan,

You were not at the HOA meeting. Many others there supported Beatrice who were not happy with Starwood. I don't think that was a single person that was happy about what was going on. But, they were there to voice their concerns.

Why don't you guys propose the cut down all the trees so they won't block your view. While you're at it take out all the grass and replace it with concrete, that way you can all have chairs by the pools. How many complaints will they get then?
I personally like the balance of the resort, But I didn't pay for a tree/ocean view either.
Good Luck on your fight.


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 1, 2010)

oneohana said:


> Why don't you guys propose the cut down all the trees so they won't block your view. While you're at it take out all the grass and replace it with concrete, that way you can all have chairs by the pools. How many complaints will they get then?
> I personally like the balance of the resort, But I didn't pay for a tree/ocean view either.
> Good Luck on your fight.



You lost me here - Were there complaints about views at the meeting?  What balance are you referring to?

What else can you tell us about the meeting?  What were some of the discussions?


----------



## DanCali (Mar 1, 2010)

oneohana said:


> Why don't you guys propose the cut down all the trees so they won't block your view. While you're at it take out all the grass and replace it with concrete, that way you can all have chairs by the pools. How many complaints will they get then?
> I personally like the balance of the resort, But I didn't pay for a tree/ocean view either.
> Good Luck on your fight.



Yes, you lost me too. I actually don't own WKORV anymore but that is because I had too many concerns. If things improve, maybe I'll become an owner there one day again. Keeping my fingers crossed because I think whatever happens here - other resorts will follow.


----------



## oneohana (Mar 1, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> You lost me here - Were there complaints about views at the meeting?  What balance are you referring to?
> 
> What else can you tell us about the meeting?  What were some of the discussions?



Alot of the meetings I didn't know exactly which association they were talking about.  I think there were 4 different ones.

The complaints were that their ocean views were blocked by trees even from the 4th floor. That was part of the room assignmets that I refered to. Sorry I wasn't clear. I was just trying to post basics so I could get back to our vacation.

Costco cheap prices- those are owned by Starwood. They can do what ever they please with them. Room rates are dropping everywhere. Better to get something than nothing.

The balance, is from the total layout of the resort (trees, grass, buildings) other TS I've visited has such a sterile feel to them.

The main topics were unpaid mf's, taxes, and trees.

The topic about the trees out front is that now that the ground cover is grown in, they can have an engineer review the area to see if they can cut back the non-native trees. They were concerned about errosion before. That is why they couldn't cut them back at the time.

Other complaints were unsupervised children in the hot tubs. 2 yaer old pooping in the tub. one owner admitted her childeren were in there, but they were not the ones causing any trouble.:hysterical: 

Many owners left there feeling better after talking with Greg about their issues. He said that if you have a problem, to give him a call. Sorry I didn't remember to bring his number home.

OT, the staff did an excellent job during and after the tsunami warning. Even the guests were cooperating. 
It must have been a mad scramble because the "all clear" was lifted at around 1:40pm. They had to get the guests out of the rooms, cleaned, and the new guests situated.

If you guys have any other questions, please let me know. Hopefully I can remember what was said.


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 1, 2010)

Thanks so much for clarifying - what was the response about maintenance fees and property taxes?


----------



## oneohana (Mar 1, 2010)

DanCali said:


> Yes, you lost me too. I actually don't own here anymore but that is because I had too many concerns. If things improve, maybe I'll become an owner there one day again. Keeping my fingers crossed because I think whatever happens here - other resorts will follow.



Hi Dan,

I thought that you got rid of your WKORV. Maybe I missed that post.

I don't know where I lost you and Denise. I was just giving solutions to the complaints.
Owners complaing that trees block their view, so get rid of them. Others complain that there are not enough chairs, pour concrete where the grass is and put more chairs. If you did that, would the owners be happy?

The trees are fine, as long as they don't block "their" view. That was the attitude potrayed by many.

I went to the HOA meeting because I just wanted to see what happens there. I'm never able to make it to the meetings where I own at. Just to get a feel of how they operate.


----------



## DeniseM (Mar 1, 2010)

> I don't know where I lost you and Denise.



In your first post, I didn't understand who you were addressing - I thought perhaps there had been a complaint on TUG about the trees/views.



> Why don't you guys propose the cut down all the trees so they won't block your view. While you're at it take out all the grass and replace it with concrete, that way you can all have chairs by the pools. How many complaints will they get then?
> I personally like the balance of the resort, But I didn't pay for a tree/ocean view either.
> Good Luck on your fight.



But from your second post, I understood that you were addressing people at the meeting and their complaints:



> The complaints were that their ocean views were blocked by trees even from the 4th floor. That was part of the room assignmets that I refered to. Sorry I wasn't clear. I was just trying to post basics so I could get back to our vacation.



I believe Dan sold his WKORV week.

What about the MF and taxes?

THANKS!


----------



## LisaRex (Mar 2, 2010)

Here's an example of a website the Sands of Kahana owners made to fight their BOD. 

http://www.sands-of-kahana.com/

Looks like a judge sided with these owners in releasing a list of owners so that they could communicate with other owners:

SOK, whole unit owner, Bill Vinson's lawsuit to get the roster of SOK owners so it would be available to all owners, timeshare and whole unit alike, went to a hearing. The judge not only agreed with our attorney he even awarded attorneys fees.  This is huge for us. We are no longer going to be in a stranglehold by CRI/CRM and their tightly controlled Board of Directors.  

We do not know yet exactly how we will proceed at this very moment. We will be conferring with the whole owners and our attorney. He did say that it could take a few weeks to bring everything about. As soon as we have the list, we will be sending out a letter to everyone outlining what our opportunities are.


----------



## j4sharks (Mar 2, 2010)

No need sue.  Someone merely needs to request the WKORV HOA members list from Starwood as I mentioned a while back.  This is your right under HI law, so ling as you ask in the specified manner.  Suing would just waste our MF $$.  Now, if you ask properly and then Starwood refuses, well that's another matter.


----------



## LisaRex (Mar 3, 2010)

I'm not talking about suing. I'm simply pointing out how another group organized to try to wrest control away from the developer.  They have a website and a person's name to write in as a proxy.  We need to be more organized if we want to get on the HOA.


----------

