# Unethical management at Marriott's Vacationclub



## haleakala20 (Jun 15, 2010)

When you are an owner in MVCI-resorts, you know, that MVCI has established an ABOD (Advisory Board of Directors). That's a group of owners, that gets elected by owners of MVCI-weeks.

Every owner of a resort can apply to become a member of this board.

The major task of that board is to scan the satisfaction of the owners improve the quality of stays in the resort and to agree to the new years budget, calculated by MVCI.


It is obvious, that MVCI does not want to have any conflicts in this board and that everything should go smooth to refer to the boards decision to have agreed to the verified and validated budget.

Every owner expects some type of audit and advisory done by the ABOD.



The reallity is very different!
MVCI is dominating that board by management and given papers for discussions. Everyone might know how companies are treating those "directors" to make them happy - or to select the right "directors".


To get the right result of formable and very friendly "directors", the applications get screened by MVCI Management and critical applicants will not make it into the given list of applicants to the owner community.



Exciting and very much more unethical is the management style of MVCI (covered by the top-management of MVCI (Mr. Steve Weisz)) to use their own - unsold - delveloper weeks to vote.
That would not be very bad in general and perhaps the legal option is given to vote for each built inventory-week. Therefore MVCI can vote with its unsold developers weeks.
But is this ethical, when only 5 % of the purchasing owners vote and MVCI has in most resorts more than 5 % unsold weeks?
It becomes a bulk election by one entity that dominates all elections done by real purchasing owners. And that is UNETHICAL?

That's from my view very unethical, because the ABOD has been presented to the owners by sales as an independent and only owner-issues committed group of owners.
Now it becomes for MVCI a homeplay to select and elect the persons, that they need to fake the owner community. 
It is even possible to elect friends of MVCI-Managers and to elect them in several resorts - because that type of person is mainly rare to find in the owner community that knows about the pro's and con's of MVCI-timesharing.

The result is, that MVCI is presenting issues to the board, that has a MVCI-minded majority of directors, that are uncritical accepting each decision presented by MVCI. 

The benefit for MVCI: They can say, that the ABOD approved .....! and the owner group wanted ....! - they can get every decision to be taken, that MVCI likes to get done.

The benefit for the owner community: None, but they have to pay the expenses and treatments of the directors without having any fair representation.


(Maybe, that I did wrong to some individuals, that became directors with fair objectives, but the majority will dominate and the decisions will be done as MVCI does want it.)


How do you feel about type of unethical management by MVCI?


----------



## DB-Wis (Jun 15, 2010)

It strikes me as unethical to throw around aspersions like "unethical management" practices without specific evidence to back up your charges.  If you have actual evidence (and not just abstract generalities), I think you have the ethical duty to lay it on the table.  

I'm not naive -- I recognize that it is possible for the management of ANY organization to skew the decision making by its board of directors or to steer the organization in one direction or another by the issues it raises (or doesn't raise) for the board to consider.  But, you count on the members of the board to be smart enough to realize that and to exercise some independent judgment in their decision making and, when warranted, push management in different directions.  

Your posting essentially brands all board members as lackeys for MCVI.  I think that is a reckless and unfounded charge.  I know that there are many hardworking board members out there trying to represent the interests of their fellow owners.  They don't deserve irresponsible and baseless claims that they are nothing more than a bunch of stooges for Marriott.


----------



## josh1231 (Jun 15, 2010)

haleakala20 said:


> When you are an owner in MVCI-resorts, you know, that MVCI has established an ABOD (Advisory Board of Directors). That's a group of owners, that gets elected by owners of MVCI-weeks.
> 
> Every owner of a resort can apply to become a member of this board.
> 
> ...



I actually don't think what you're explaining is unethical. Not sure where the 5% of owners voting number came from, but assuming this is correct, this is not really a Marriott problem. They cannot control the number of people voting. Second, if they own X percent of the outstanding weeks at the property, then they are entitled to vote just like everyone else. Assumably it is their end goal to own 0% of ownership weeks, or near that, at each resort.

The only thing I find particularly unethical that Marriott does is sell a $150,000 Branson condo for $950,000 then collect $3300 in monthly association dues. When you have managed to sell a condo for more than 6 times its worth, then reduced the value to less than 50% of its actual values through unfriendly management terms, that may be unethical.

What you're explaining isn't, in my opinion.


----------



## Swice (Jun 15, 2010)

*Sticking up for Marriott*

Marriott may not be perfect.   But from what I've seen, it has operated in a very ethical manner.

Marriott has done nothing different than what most major residential developers do all the time.     Yes, the developer "votes" their lots/units in residential homeowner organizations.

I worked harder at my "volunteer" position of Homeowner's Association Board President than I did my "regular" job.    I managed the handover from a very highend major developer to the homeowners -- and saw many things up close.    Of course, I didn't agree with everything the developer did (or did not do), but for the most part, they tried to make the best and right decisions.   

I applied a year ago to be on a Marriott board and was not picked as one of the finalists, but I hold no hard feelings.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jun 15, 2010)

We've been timeshare owners since 1998 and Marriott owners since 2001. If you want unethical, try Westgate. As far as I'm concerned Marriott has done a great job of managing the resorts we own at with the highest standards. They may not have the cheapest MF's but, they also don't allow for cheap quality either. Everything is of very good quality and it's kept to the standards that Marriott sets to keep the Marroitt name on the building. 

With Marriott it's pretty simple, meet our standards or lose our name. As owners at a couple of resorts in Vail or HHI. Beachplace Towers HOA recently went through negotiations with Marriott and certain standards were demanded or Marriott would walk away from being their management company and take their name with them.

Marriott has a certain standard. If they're going to put their name on the timeshare, that standard will be met. Otherwise they're happy to take their name off the project and walk away.


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Jun 15, 2010)

haleakala20 said:


> When you are an owner in MVCI-resorts, you know, that MVCI has established an ABOD (Advisory Board of Directors). That's a group of owners, that gets elected by owners of MVCI-weeks.
> 
> Every owner of a resort can apply to become a member of this board.
> 
> ...




I guess a risk people in leadership positions assume is having customers make unsubstantiated allegations of unethical business practices or unethical practices by them personally. I suspect that those with bonafide knowledge of the allegations that you make will prove your allegations otherwise; in truth beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and if these are your perceptions, so be they.

One of the reasons that my wife and I felt comfortable buying our first Marriott timeshare week from Marriott about 25 years ago, was our comfort doing business with Marriott, as guests of Marriott hotels (our Marriott Honored Guest Awards (predecessor to Marriott Rewards) numbers began with 0000), and we felt comfortable and confident about Marriott managing our timeshare (1/52nd, I might add, of the ownership stake in any one of our homes).

Having served as a HOA board member for many years, I must say that my experience was the exact opposite of what your describe/speculate, and I might add, I don't believe that Marriott ever bought me or our family a dinner other than when it coincided with a Board meeting. In the context of full disclosure, there was an occasional fruit basket, but if I were managing a company and had a volunteer Board, and knew the associated cost of the fruit basket was under $25.00, I'd show my appreciation to a Board Member any time I wanted to, without concerns of impropriety. I should also add that when it comes to making reservations, we'd call into the same toll-free number that all other Marriott owners do, or go to the same website that all other owners do. Never, did Marriott show me any preference as a Board member.

If I understand your comments about Marriott voting on the respective ownership interests that they own, I respectfully disagree with your issues about Marriott exercising their rights to vote on the real estate that they own. Are you suggesting that you as an owner should have the right to vote on the timeshare weeks that Marriott owns? 

With regard to your comments that suggest that HOA Board Members are a bunch of bobbing heads, my experience was otherwise. First, as a Homeowners Association Board Member, I expect the Management Company to exercise their expertise and responsibilities, and to prepare their recommendations for the consideration of the Board. Second, again my personal experience on one board, is that the Board members exercised a high degree of fiduciary responsibility to the Association, and did anything other than simply rubber stamp whatever Marriott brought to the Board. I can remember on several occasions directing Marriott to obtain additional estimates, find other vendors (than, for example, their in-house refurbishment team), etc.

I say to you the same thing that I'd say to anyone else who is unhappy being part of any association, (1) influence your desired change in the democratic environment that exists, and/or (2) sell your timeshare and move on. Suffice it to say that if Marriott owns the majority of inventory at the resort that you own, that the likelihood of you influencing a change to any policy that is not in keeping with Marriott's policy and/or policy recommendations is low. If what you are experiencing has come as a surprise to you, rest assured, you are not alone; I can't imagine that many timeshare owners knew what they were getting themselves into when they became timeshare owners (e.g. resort governance, maintenance fee escalations, etc.).

Finally, my experience has been that the HOA Boards at the Marriott resorts at which we own are quite responsive to inquiries and recommendations of owners. While there are paranoid and skeptical people who take issue with correspondence between owners and the HOA Board being channeled through Marriott, in truth, the volume of correspondence is so great that Marriott's involvement in that role is a necessity, and the Summary Reports and trends that Marriott compiles are very helpful and lend efficiency to Board members.

Thank you for being amongst those who peaked my curiosity about Internet Bulletin Board participants. In about one year, I suggest you Google the following key words: timeshare, lurker, Internet, and psychiatry. My colleaues/students and I hope to make a meaningful contribution to the psychiatry literature based on our assessment of a variety of Internet forums and their participants.

***The opinions and statements above are mine and not Marriott's, who I do not represent.


----------



## Latravel (Jun 16, 2010)

To be honest, it's comments like yours that could get your resort in trouble.  Without the Marriott name and their standards/influence, our timeshares would be worth a lot less.  Demand would go down and probably standards as well.  People want to trade into our timeshares because of the Marriott name and expectations of quality.  You don't want to jeopardize this relationship since it's in your best interest.

It's always best to try to work with Marriott instead of name calling and making serious accusations because if they ever dropped your facility, it would be bad news for you.


----------



## haleakala20 (Jun 16, 2010)

*unethical or common business?*

Dear all, that replied,

I'm feeling thankful of your comments and I'm feeling bad about having hurt the feelings of all the fair and engaged board members that are trying to do their very best.

I do apologize to them, but I did not write, that all members of the board are not enough minded to the owners requests, but too much minded to the Marriott needs.
You will be able to check, what I mean in all your boards. How often did the board manage, to check and reduce the next years budget? 

My experience is from 3 years being on the ABOD in Marriott's Mallorca Son Antem. And if you want, you can read about the uncommunicated decision of MVCI to vote with developers unsold weeks in the minutes of that resort.

My intention of bringing that issue into the discussion is, that the owner community should be aware, that MVCI is doing it and that it is a topmanagement decision to do so in ALL Vacationclubs with still existing developers inventory.

It comes now to the question of unethical or common business?
From my view - and I did apply to the board for that - independent owners that are on the board, might be able to question MVCI quality, treatments, costs and contract changes. 
Non independent owners, being too much Marriott minded, will not question, but only rubberstamp.
That makes the whole ABOD to a fake-instance, because (it already does not have much power - but it approves the budgets) it will in its majority accept MVCI's suggestions nearly unquestioned.

This is not, what the owners expect from that Advisory Board, that should be something like THEIR representation. Knowing that it is not a real advisory board as it is in the corporate world, it should at least committ and dedicate their time only to the owners benefit.



To give you some more insights into my communication with the MVCI topmanagement, I want to present to you the staements of Mr. Weisz and Mr. Schavemaker:

I)

In response to your recent e-mail please be advised that the responses that you have received from both R. R. and Dirk Schavemaker are the official position of MVCI. I was fully aware and supportive of our company wide decision to exercise our voting interests in condominium association matters and take exception, as previously noted in my previous communications, to your assertion that by our voting our interests it represents unethical behavior. To the contrary we, as owners of weeks at a resort, have the same rights as any other owner in terms of our ability to vote for or against any issue being considered by the association and will continue to do so in what we consider to be the best interests of the owners.
While I fully understand that this response may not be to your liking this is the position of Marriott Vacation Club International.

Steve Weisz


II)

I am in receipt of a copy of your email of November 3rd, 2009, addressed to Steve Weisz, regarding the most recent Owner Advisory Board elections for Marriott’s Club Son Antem. In addition, I am in receipt of copies of various emails between R. R., B. M., and you, regarding the same topic. As I am responsible for the day-to-day operations of our resorts, I have been asked to respond to your email on behalf of Mr. Weisz.  
First and foremost, I would like to apologize for the time it has taken us to respond to your email. Given the serious nature of your email, particularly your reference to and questioning of our company’s ethics, I wanted to make sure I understood the exact details of the most recent election prior to responding to you. R. R. has appropriately and correctly represented our company’s view points regarding the use of Developer votes in several emails to you. However, I would like to confirm that Marriott Vacation Club decided to exercise its Developer votes in 2009 in all resorts where is owns inventory, and that it is considering doing the same in future years.
Marriott Vacation Club did not only decide to do this to protect its own interest, but – more importantly - to protect the general interests of individual Holiday Owners. Although Boards of International resorts are strictly advisory in nature, Marriott Vacation Club still feels that Board dynamics can have a far reaching impact on the general interest and overall experience of individual Holiday Owners. Consequently, a decision was made to exercise Developer votes at all US resorts, as well as at all International resorts.
Respectfully, I fail to see how this could possibly constitute unethical management behavior, or even that this practice could do harm to the independence of a Board, as you suggested in your email. Marriott Vacation Club, as the owner of unsold and reacquired holiday weeks, has the same rights and responsibilities as any other Holiday Owner, including a right to vote and a responsibility to pay its annual maintenance fees on time. Just as any other owner, Marriott Vacation Club can only vote for candidates, who have been pre-selected by the Nominating Committee, while it enjoys absolutely no voting power on the Board.
Marriott Vacation Club, as the Developer and the Management Company of Holiday Ownership resorts, can only continue to be successful if it consistently meets and exceeds the expectations of Holiday Owners. As such, exercising Developer votes responsibly is one step our company has decided to take to bring it closer to achieving this goal.
Sincerely,

Dirk Schavemaker
SVP, Customer Experience & Resort Operations
Marriott Vacation Club International



I do still blame that as unethical, as long as that knowledge is not presented to all owners of Marriott Vacationclubs.
Therefore the hiding of that information and the partisan style of doing something unexpected, is unethical. If MVCI will publish it to all owners, it will become common practice. so what!



Please let me only mention at the end, that I'm very much satisfied with most, what Marriott and MVCI offers as locations and services to guests.
I am using Marriott since 30 years and I do own several weeks at MVCI since 20 years. I wouldn't have done that, if I wouldn't have trusted Marriott to be really one of the top timeshare companies with the most advantages for owners and myself. But sorry, even the market leader feels the difficulties in the market and the treatment should not go against the trustful owners, that invested their money.

Other things that happen during the last two years are contract changes and more and more restrictions, that MVCI implements without any offical publishing to the existing owners. I will open another thread in the near future about that practice.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 16, 2010)

I truly am shocked at the number of owners who throw out the word "unethical" when Marriott acts in accordance with the contracts - as Developer and Management Company - for MVCI resorts.  The facts are that Marriott owns voting shares for the units held in developer inventory as well as for the "common areas" of the resorts, and Marriott is entitled to hold seat(s) on the BOD's of the various resorts.  It isn't any more unethical for them to exercise their rights as it is for you to exercise yours.

As others have said, it also isn't their fault if the majority ownership does not exercise its voting rights - Marriott cannot force owners to vote on any issue, and should not be expected to abstain from voting simply because a majority of owners don't.

If you read the monstrous Aruba thread here on TUG you'll find similar complaints to yours about Marriott's timeshare management as well as responses from seasoned TUGgers who have a great deal of knowledge of how Marriott administers its timeshare business.  It also includes notice of Marriott's fairly recent stated intention to exercise its voting rights at every MVCI resort:

(from post 2719 in that thread)


> ... We were informed of two additional statements the night before the vote: 1. that MVCI now would be casting their 1500 votes every year (and would be voting at all MVCI properties)  ...


----------



## haleakala20 (Jun 16, 2010)

*owners vote vs. developers vote*

There is a big difference of the intentions to vote for the two groups:

Owners vote, because they want to get represented from independent owners, that have experienced the same (Quality, restrictions, price and resale issues), when they vote 

and the managing company that wants to make more money out of their investment. They want to have satisfied qwners and they will provide a service and a quality that will be accepted by at least 85%, but they do not want to fulfill all sales-talks about the overall investment.
They don't care, if an owner is confronted with more costs, than any outside purchaser. They don't want to establish resale programs. They don't want to become more efficient (economy of scale) in their central services. 
They do want to earn and it is not to share the costs between the owners.

There is a big difference, who uses his votes.

But a bulk vote by MVCI is overwhelming and overruling the owner-votes.
That makes 95% of owners dependent on 5% management companies votes and getting overruled and dependent.
That is not what I was told, when I purchased MVCI weeks in Son Antem or anywhere else. It happened a change in management style during the last 5 years from serious to unexpectable and unpredictable.


----------



## DanCali (Jun 16, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> If you read the monstrous Aruba thread here on TUG you'll find similar complaints to yours about Marriott's timeshare management as well as responses from seasoned TUGgers who have a great deal of knowledge of how Marriott administers its timeshare business.  *It also includes notice of Marriott's fairly recent stated intention to exercise its voting rights at every MVCI resort:
> *
> (from post 2719 in that thread)



I didn't realize the Aruba thread because the official means of communicating with owners...

I have a couple of comments on this...

First off - in a different thread, dioxide45 mentioned Marriott has a guarantee period for new resorts. A developer may elect to exclude him/herself from paying annual assessments on inventory they own during a guarantee period with the understanding  that they will pay all operating/reserve costs that exceed annual assessments received from the other unit owners. Clearly this is not the same as paying assessments... In fact, the more owners pay, the less Marriott pays during a guarantee period. So to say they pay annual assessments on all the units they own is not entirely true...

The practice of screening board candidates is somewhat unethical in my view. If Marriott screens them, who said Marriott is the right arbiter? If the current board screens them what gives them the right to pick their successors? a Board is not a monarchy...

In fact, not only is this practice wrong, it is also illegal in some places such as Hawaii. Hawaii statutes 514A-82(b)(4)clearly state the following:

"     (3)  Notices of association meetings, whether annual or special, shall be sent to each member of the association of apartment owners at least fourteen days prior to the meeting and shall contain at least: 

         (A)  The date, time, and place of the meeting;

         (B)  The items on the agenda for the meeting; and

         (C)  A standard proxy form authorized by the association, if any;

(4) No resident manager or managing agent shall solicit, for use by the manager or managing agent, any proxies from any apartment owner of the association of owners that employs the resident manager or managing agent, nor shall the resident manager or managing agent cast any proxy vote at any association meeting except for the purpose of establishing a quorum. Any board of directors that intends to use association funds to distribute proxies, including the standard proxy form referred to in paragraph (3), shall first post notice of its intent to distribute proxies in prominent locations within the project at least thirty days prior to its distribution of proxies;* provided that 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 shall not exceed one hundred words, indicating the owner's qualifications to serve on the board and reasons for wanting to receive proxies;"*

In fact, after this was posted by Tugger jarta on the Starwood board, a different Tugger (j4sharks) followed this recipe and was able to get on the ballot for WKORV. Of course the nomination was crushed by the sitting Board's right to vote unmarked proxies at their discretion, but the point is that Hawaii legislature had the vision to allow any owner to run for the Board. It would be illegal for Marriott to screen candidates in Hawaii, certainly if the above recipe is followed to the letter. 

If they did it in Hawaii, because someone didn't follow that wording to the letter IMO it's still against the spirit of the law because owner's probably just followed directions provided by Marriott and were then excluded. If they do it in other states, it's still wrong in my view for reasons I stated above.


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Jun 16, 2010)

haleakala20 said:


> But a bulk vote by MVCI is overwhelming and overruling the owner-votes.



But, Marriott is the owner of the unsold inventory and is doing everything that the other owners are doing - - exercising their right to vote based on their ownership of fractional real estate.

With all due respect, it sounds like you are uncomfortable with so many aspects of MVCI ownership that you are unlikely to change, that you may never again be a satisfied owner. You may, therefore, find yourself in a much more comfortable place if you sell your Marriott timeseshare(s).


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 16, 2010)

DanCali said:


> I didn't realize the Aruba thread because the official means of communicating with owners...



Of course it's not; I mentioned it because it's one place where an owner can learn that it's not exactly unheard of for Marriott to exercise its voting rights.  If I was going to allege that Marriott was engaging in unethical behavior, I'd be inclined to search for evidence in the contracts and through any other source that what I'm alleging is correct.

Besides, where is it stated that Marriott suffers any requirement at all to notify owners when, or whether or not, they'll be voting?



DanCali said:


> I have a couple of comments on this...
> 
> First off - in a different thread, dioxide45 mentioned Marriott has a guarantee period for new resorts. A developer may elect to exclude him/herself from paying annual assessments on inventory they own during a guarantee period with the understanding  that they will pay all operating/reserve costs that exceed annual assessments received from the other unit owners. Clearly this is not the same as paying assessments... In fact, the more owners pay, the less Marriott pays during a guarantee period. So to say they pay annual assessments on all the units they own is not entirely true...



But I didn't say anything about what they pay for the units they hold, I said that if they hold units they're entitled to voting shares for them.  That voting entitlement, and any other connected to "common areas", should be stipulated in the contracts.  If it is, then how can Marriott be considered "unethical" here?



DanCali said:


> The practice of screening board candidates is somewhat unethical in my view. If Marriott screens them, who said Marriott is the right arbiter? If the current board screens them what gives them the right to pick their successors? a Board is not a monarchy...
> 
> In fact, not only is this practice wrong, it is also illegal in some places such as Hawaii....



As we've discussed in that other thread, I generally don't see a difference between "unethical" and "illegal" when it comes to Marriott's timeshare business.  If the way a BOD volunteer is (or is not) screened for a seat is illegal, whether it's in violation of the contracts or state/county/country laws, then the practice in question can and should be challenged.  But if it's not in violation of those things and an owner simply thinks that Marriott should not have any say in how a BOD is assembled, that owner needs to be supported by the contracts and laws in order to enforce his belief.  The Marriott contracts I'm aware of allow for a BOD screening committee composed of sitting BOD members including the Marriott-held seat(s) - if that's the case at this OP's resort, I don't see how he can allege "unethical" or "illegal" actions.

For some folks there IS a line between "unethical" and "illegal" - those folks will obviously not agree with my thoughts.  I'm only throwing them out there to add another point of view.


----------



## DanCali (Jun 16, 2010)

Well, now that this info is posted, if anyone was turned down from running to a Hawaii Board, know that the law may be on your side.

If someone wants to run for a Hawaii Board in the future, you now know which statute to reference in your correspondence with the "vetting committee" and they should have absolutely no say regarding your candidacy.


----------



## modoaruba (Jun 16, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> I truly am shocked at the number of owners who throw out the word "unethical" when Marriott acts in accordance with the contracts - as Developer and Management Company - for MVCI resorts.  The facts are that Marriott owns voting shares for the units held in developer inventory as well as for the "common areas" of the resorts, and Marriott is entitled to hold seat(s) on the BOD's of the various resorts.  It isn't any more unethical for them to exercise their rights as it is for you to exercise yours.
> 
> As others have said, it also isn't their fault if the majority ownership does not exercise its voting rights - Marriott cannot force owners to vote on any issue, and should not be expected to abstain from voting simply because a majority of owners don't.
> 
> ...



Hi Sue,

Just going to throw my 2 cents in.
If anyone has read the Aruba thread that you have brought up they will see that there has been some accusations by a former board member there of questionable acts by MVCI, one being how the BOD is chosen.
A concerned owners group has been formed with their own web site to inform as many owners that can find it as to the concerns that were brought up about the facility and it's politics.
This group tried to get Marriott to release all of the owners names and contact information to let each owner have the ability to know what this group is about and their concerns.
Marriott has brought about the legalities of doing such and put a scare to the owners that giving out such information would cause solicitions by unsavory entities.Thus preventing letting the word out to the majority of owners as to the concerns.
As you can see that it was stated that only 5% of owners vote and if that number jumped due to this group being able to reach out to the rest of the owners then MVCI might loose control.So legal actions are in the works from what I understand.
It was suggested that the board meetings be taped for owners who cannot be present to at least be able to see what and how the meetings are conducted.
That idea was shot down because the board president did not want himself to be taped.
Unfortunatly,like any election,only a minority turn out and that's what the big guns know and know how to keep it that way.


----------



## lovearuba (Jun 16, 2010)

*website address*

Since you are referring to the concerned owners website, here is the address:



http://www.aocconcernedowners.com/

As you expect, I do agree with the concerns of the original poster on this thread and I'm not surprised folks that consistently defend Marriott are challenging the point being made.


----------



## haleakala20 (Jun 17, 2010)

*In which VC's did MVCI vote for the ABOD*

May I sak the question, if anyone knows, in which resorts MVCI did vote for the ABOD-members with their unsold developers weeks?

How transparent is it to the owners of the resort and
how transparent is it to boards when MVCI uses its votes?


It is like with the BP-oilspill. Wen the companies and the auditors are working too close together, there will be no real control. 
The owners should have the cance to decide, if they will accept it in their resort.

I would even suggest a letter of clearance or a type of codex, that any applicant to the board should state his relationship to Marriott / MVCI and how far he might be not only committed to the owner community of the resort.

I do get more and more the feeling, that MVCI is treating the owners like "cashcows" and not like partners that invested into their long-time-committment.


----------



## DanCali (Jun 17, 2010)

haleakala20 said:


> May I sak the question, if anyone knows, in which resorts MVCI did vote for the ABOD-members with their unsold developers weeks?
> 
> How transparent is it to the owners of the resort and
> how transparent is it to boards when MVCI uses its votes?
> ...



Their right to vote unsold weeks is stated in the resort documents (see the Canyon Villas doc for example - instructions below). If they are an owner they can vote... I guess it's as transparent as anything else is... (I imagine 95% of owners don't read beyond page 5)

(here is how to get to the MCV docs: go to http://recorder.maricopa.gov/recdocdata/ and look for the document with "recording number" 2001-0534924; when you get the next page, click on the hotlink that has the number of pages (81), and you'll get the pdf)


----------



## DanCali (Jun 17, 2010)

I found it interesting that the MCV doc I reference above has this clause, which explicitly excludes the developer 6.10.(C)(6) page 17:

*"An annual special vote of Owners other than the Developer shall be taken on the question of retaining the foregoing provision permitting the Developer to be entitled to the proceeds of the rental of Unused Use Periods or have the revenues derived accrue to the benefit of the Association...

The foregoing provision permitting the Developer to derive revenues from the rental of Unused Use Periods shall be of no further force or effect if a bare majority of Owners other than the Developer voting on this question vote in favor of the proposal to have the revenue accrue to the benefit of the Association"*

Can anyone think of any reason why a Board doing its fiduciary duty would give that revenue to Marriott (other than a fair rental commission)? I wonder how MCV votes on this each year??? Does this vote come up at all? Is this provision in the docs of other resorts or is Arizona just looking after owners?


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 17, 2010)

DanCali said:


> I found it interesting that the MCV doc I reference above has this clause, which explicitly excludes the developer 6.10.(C)(6) page 17:
> 
> *"An annual special vote of Owners other than the Developer shall be taken on the question of retaining the foregoing provision permitting the Developer to be entitled to the proceeds of the rental of Unused Use Periods or have the revenues derived accrue to the benefit of the Association...
> 
> ...



That's interesting, not something I've seen come up for annual voting at our SC resorts.  I'm pretty sure I'd remember it, and would vote for the revenue to not go to the Developer.   

If you go to the resort's page at my-vacationclub.com and click on the "Owners" tab, you may find minutes and voting results for the Annual Meeting.  Or maybe a "rental income" or similar line item in the budget statement?


----------



## DanCali (Jun 17, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> That's interesting, not something I've seen come up for annual voting at our SC resorts.  I'm pretty sure I'd remember it, and would vote for the revenue to not go to the Developer.
> 
> If you go to the resort's page at my-vacationclub.com and click on the "Owners" tab, you may find minutes and voting results for the Annual Meeting.  Or maybe a "rental income" or similar line item in the budget statement?



Well, since you usually claim the governing docs are what matter in determining if something is legal/ethical - do your resort documents have a similar clause?

Would be interesting to also hear from a MCV owner about this!


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 17, 2010)

DanCali said:


> Well, since you usually claim the governing docs are what matter in determining if something is legal/ethical - do your resort documents have a similar clause?
> 
> Would be interesting to also hear from a MCV owner about this!



Well, for one thing, the "Public Offering Statement" book (referenced here) that I have for SurfWatch is 376 pages of legal-size documents condensed into 5.5"x8.5" pages, and I haven't read every page.     But I don't see anything similar to that language anywhere in the book where I've found reference to the Developer being able to reserve inventory for their own use, including rentals.  It could be in there somewhere, and if I ever find it I'll be sure to come back here with it.

About what you posted though - immediately following "An annual special vote of Owners other than the Developer shall be taken on the question of retaining the foregoing provision permitting the Developer to be entitled to the proceeds of the rental of Unused Use Periods or have the revenues derived accrue to the benefit of the Association..." is the statement, "The first such special vote shall be conducted at the earlier to occur of (a) the annual meeting of the Association following the sale of the Ownership Interest representing the 66-2/3 percentile interest of the total number authorized for sale ... or (b) the annual meeting of the Association immediately preceding the expiration date of the management contract. ..."

Wouldn't that mean that if Canyon Villas is not 2/3 sold out yet or if the Management Agreement with Marriott is not due to expire this year, then this special vote clause is not yet in effect?  I have no idea how sold out the resort is or when the management agreement is due to expire, or even if I'm correctly interpreting things here.  Food for thought.

(Don't know about you, Dan, or anyone else reading here, but I enjoy these sorts of discussions and the way they help me learn about MVCI.  Sorry if this is getting too off-topic, though.)


----------



## DanCali (Jun 17, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> Well, for one thing, the "Public Offering Statement" book (referenced here) that I have for SurfWatch is 376 pages of legal-size documents condensed into 5.5"x8.5" pages, and I haven't read every page.     But I don't see anything similar to that language anywhere in the book where I've found reference to the Developer being able to reserve inventory for their own use, including rentals.  It could be in there somewhere, and if I ever find it I'll be sure to come back here with it.
> 
> About what you posted though - immediately following "An annual special vote of Owners other than the Developer shall be taken on the question of retaining the foregoing provision permitting the Developer to be entitled to the proceeds of the rental of Unused Use Periods or have the revenues derived accrue to the benefit of the Association..." is the statement, "The first such special vote shall be conducted at the earlier to occur of (a) the annual meeting of the Association following the sale of the Ownership Interest representing the 66-2/3 percentile interest of the total number authorized for sale ... or (b) the annual meeting of the Association immediately preceding the expiration date of the management contract. ..."
> 
> ...



I don't think it's getting off topic - we're discussing ethical issues and fiduciary duties... Because many owners don't vote - ultimately it's the Board making the calls. I would be horrified to learn that the MCV board is using it's ability to vote unmarked ballots and giving that revenue to Marriott. 

MCV has been in sales for quite some time and has an attractive platinum season that is 29 weeks long (1-17, 41-52). It's also Marriott's only resort in the area. I would be very surprised if they haven't sold 2/3 of it (35 weeks worth of all units sold) by now.


----------



## jerseyfinn (Jun 17, 2010)

Well, I'm going to admit that I've read but so far down in this thread until I hit the OP's message which reveals the OP is a former board member at an MVCI resort.  You paint with some bold strokes and brightly colored accusations and you name names and quote individuals, but as a former member of that board, you remain annonymous here. That's pretty incongruous to me, but that's just my own take on things.

All I gotta say is that every MVCI owner has a decision to make about MVC and the hard-earned bucks ( or Euros ) they've laid down to become an owner. Ideally, an owner purchases a resort at which they're going to  occupy with some regularity and hopefully ask good questions of their GMs, managers, and associates when they are on property. It's in everyone's interest to know some rudimentary facts about their resorts and the specific issues and needs which distinguish every MVCI from each other.

As to the HOAs. They're each going to behave differently in accordance with who runs for office and who gets elected as the skill sets and attitudes these folks bring to each HOA will vary -- and not all boards may have what one might subjectively call the "right stuff" ( for example is a board well served by an owner-director who rarely occupies at their resort or is an effective board one which is top heavy in accountants or lawyers etc. or other groups/nationalities? ). It's not an easy task finding competent and dedicated volunteers, but neither is it impossible. As to that 5% figure.  It's possible indeed, but not necessarily representative of of MVCI in general. Though I do know from  some of our GMs that only 25% to 35% of owners actually take the time to vote, and I might venture a surmise that in general perhaps 1/3 to 2/5ths  of owners ever take the time to vote.

So can there be dysfunctional or ineffective HOAs? Yep! Is Marriott in on the fix or "stacking the deck?"  I doubt it as too many of us have walked the gang plank of deciding for or against purchasing MVC and if we had sensed any shaky credibility in the product, we would not be owners gathering in this forum.

That's my take anyhow.

Barry


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 17, 2010)

DanCali said:


> I don't think it's getting off topic - we're discussing ethical issues and fiduciary duties... Because many owners don't vote - ultimately it's the Board making the calls. I would be horrified to learn that the MCV board is using it's ability to vote unmarked ballots and giving that revenue to Marriott.



Completely agree, that would be horrifying.  I went and checked under that "Owners" tab for MCV at my-vacationclub.com and didn't see any reference to rentals specifically in the latest budget, GM's statement or Annual Meeting minutes.  There is a line item in the 2010 budget for "Other Income" - any idea what that is? 



DanCali said:


> MCV has been in sales for quite some time and has an attractive platinum season that is 29 weeks long (1-17, 41-52). It's also Marriott's only resort in the area. I would be very surprised if they haven't sold 2/3 of it (35 weeks worth of all units sold) by now.



Would the latest phase opening in 2009 mean that 2/3 hasn't been reached yet?  Again, have no idea ...


----------



## DanCali (Jun 17, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> Completely agree, that would be horrifying.  I went and checked under that "Owners" tab for MCV at my-vacationclub.com and didn't see any reference to rentals specifically in the latest budget, GM's statement or Annual Meeting minutes.  There is a line item in the 2010 budget for "Other Income" - any idea what that is?



I have no idea - could be anything... commissions from restaurants/coffee shops, pool activities, etc




SueDonJ said:


> Would the latest phase opening in 2009 mean that 2/3 hasn't been reached yet?  Again, have no idea ...



I don't know either... I own at Westin Kierland which is located in the same county. That resort is mostly sold out for sure. I'll pull up their docs to see how Starwood treats this.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 17, 2010)

---Deleted---


----------



## ecwinch (Jun 17, 2010)

JMO - but part of the problem here is that we think the HOA is a democracy - where every owner has an equal voice in the direction and outcome of the resort.

However if you look at the business structure, you will see that the HOA is really a corporation - albeit a non-profit one. As such, each owner is really just a shareholder in the corporate structure, with voting rights based on the number of units they own.

And the reality of any corporation is that the party that controls greatest number of shares, generally controls the corporation - determining the direction and composition of the Board. This is simply based on the fact that they are the largest stakeholder in the organization. This is no different then how any corporation works. 

This situation is no different. Marriott has voting rights based on the units they control and/or the commercial space they lease/own. That is not unethical. No more than when Steve Jobs decides what direction Apple will take.

Get rid of the Mr. Smith goes to Washington mentality.


----------



## haleakala20 (Jun 18, 2010)

*Most ethical companies*

Marriott 2007    Ranking within the first 100!

“Our commitment to high ethical standards starts at the top and every day we challenge our associates to uphold that commitment to each other, our shareholders, our guests, our business partners and our surrounding communities. We are honored to be recognized as one of the best.” 
John Geller, Chief Audit Executive, Marriott International. 



Marriott 2008    Ranking within the first 100!

"Our commitment to high ethical standards starts at the top and every day we challenge our associates to uphold that commitment to each other, our shareholders, our guests, our business partners and our surrounding communities. We are honored to be recognized as one of the best.” 
John Geller, Chief Audit Executive, Marriott International. 



Marriott 2009    Ranking within the first 100!

"Our commitment to high ethical standards starts at the top and every day we challenge our associates to uphold that commitment to each other, our shareholders, our guests, our business partners and our surrounding communities. We are honored to be recognized as one of the best.” 
John Geller, Chief Audit Executive, Marriott International. 



2010 World’s Most Ethical Companies

The World’s Most Ethical Companies designation recognizes companies that truly go beyond making statements about doing business “ethically” and translate those words into action. WME honorees demonstrate real and sustained ethical leadership within their industries, putting into real business practice the Institute’s credo of “Good. Smart. Business. Profit.”

There is no set number of companies that make the list each year. Rather, the World’s Most Ethical Company designation is awarded to those companies that have leading ethics and compliance programs, particularly as compared to their industry peers. This year, there are 100 World’s Most Ethical Companies. Of these companies, 26 are new to the list in 2010 and 24 companies dropped off from the 2009 list. These “drop offs” generally occurred because of litigation and ethics violations, as well as increased competition from within their industry.




Three years on the list and dropped in 2010!

What happened with Marriott, that it can get recognized from a ranking organization, what the guests and owners are feeling since some few years.

What is going wrong and why - but most interesting what changes in Management did cause that drop out?

Lets hope, that Marriott gets nominated in 2011 and that the company gets back their ranking that they should deserve.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 18, 2010)

haleakala20 said:


> ... Three years on the list and dropped in 2010!
> 
> What happened with Marriott, that it can get recognized from a ranking organization, what the guests and owners are feeling since some few years.
> 
> ...



What happened is probably exactly what the press release said - " These “drop offs” generally occurred because of litigation and ethics violations, as well as increased competition from within their industry."  I wonder if the ongoing situation at Aruba Ocean Club (and its mention on multiple internet sites) didn't contribute in a large way to the drop-off - just look at the title of the monster thread here on TUG and imagine how often it lands on a search engine's results list.

If anyone's interested, here's the official notice/website for the organization who does that annual ranking.  And also, I had a feeling it would show up  here in this thread because it's been offered up as "evidence" and discussed in the Aruba thread, too, beginning with Post #2683.


----------



## tlwmkw (Jun 18, 2010)

Is Haleakala20 a code name for Allan Cohen?  Sounds like a lot of the same issues are being brought up as in the Aruba thread.  Haleakala- if you are a real individual- I am sorry for suggesting you aren't who you say you are.

tlwmkw


----------



## haleakala20 (Jun 18, 2010)

tlwmkw said:


> Is Haleakala20 a code name for Allan Cohen?  Sounds like a lot of the same issues are being brought up as in the Aruba thread.  Haleakala- if you are a real individual- I am sorry for suggesting you aren't who you say you are.
> 
> tlwmkw




Yes, I'm real and I'm concerned about those subjects.
I can speek german, if you might like.
Why should I be a pseudo of Allan Cohen?

Perhaps the treatment to Allan in Aruba was similar to the treatment of my person in Son Antem (Mallorca - Spain).
Perhaps there are even more Allans and Thomas in boards, that are working for the owners benefit, ask too many questions to MVCI get treated in an "unethical" way. But thats not the reason, why I'm discussing hear. 
I think, that a company like Marriott - and even the subdivision MVCI - should treat theis owners in an ethical, democratic and transparent way.
I dont have any concerns of myself and a job that want to do right - but all regular owners in the MVCI system should be aware, that their represantatives are not always representing them, because they might have a closer link to MVCI. I know, what I'm talking about! 

MVCI does not like to talk about financial impacts of their contracts - they like only friendly vacationers that are satisfied and like to get treated like "cashcows".

"cashcows" of the MVCI-world - get unified! to request at least a fair and ethical acting company to be their managing partner of their resorts.


----------



## lovearuba (Jun 18, 2010)

*Insulting*



tlwmkw said:


> Is Haleakala20 a code name for Allan Cohen?  Sounds like a lot of the same issues are being brought up as in the Aruba thread.  Haleakala- if you are a real individual- I am sorry for suggesting you aren't who you say you are.
> 
> tlwmkw



There are an unusual number of marriott supporters on this site, why is it so difficult to understand that not everyone shares your view


----------



## lovearuba (Jun 18, 2010)

*Maybe*



SueDonJ said:


> What happened is probably exactly what the press release said - " These “drop offs” generally occurred because of litigation and ethics violations, as well as increased competition from within their industry."  I wonder if the ongoing situation at Aruba Ocean Club (and its mention on multiple internet sites) didn't contribute in a large way to the drop-off - just look at the title of the monster thread here on TUG and imagine how often it lands on a search engine's results list.
> 
> If anyone's interested, here's the official notice/website for the organization who does that annual ranking.  And also, I had a feeling it would show up  here in this thread because it's been offered up as "evidence" and discussed in the Aruba thread, too, beginning with Post #2683.



Or quite possibly Marriott did not want to be involved and did not participate in this particular process for their own reasons, you keep saying we are such a small group and you discount our efforts, are you now thinking our concerns may be getting some attention


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 18, 2010)

lovearuba said:


> Or quite possibly Marriott did not want to be involved and did not participate in this particular process for their own reasons, you keep saying we are such a small group and you discount our efforts, are you now thinking our concerns may be getting some attention



Sure, that's possible too, maybe Marriott had its own reason for not participating in the nomination process this year for that award.  Have you contacted the folks at Ethisphere to see if it's even possible for a company to take itself out of the running?

I don't think I've ever said that I think your efforts go unnoticed - I'm just not sure they get noticed for the reasons you expect.  I also haven't said that you are a small group or that I discount your efforts - what I've said is that your numbers represent only a minority group of the entire Marriott Aruba Ocean Club ownership, and that your efforts could have been better served if you'd done some things differently.

Nitpicking, I know, but the slightest difference can give things a whole new meaning.


----------



## lovearuba (Jun 18, 2010)

*well Sue*



SueDonJ said:


> Sure, that's possible too, maybe Marriott had its own reason for not participating in the nomination process this year for that award.  Have you contacted the folks at Ethisphere to see if it's even possible for a company to take itself out of the running?
> 
> I don't think I've ever said that I think your efforts go unnoticed - I'm just not sure they get noticed for the reasons you expect.  I also haven't said that you are a small group or that I discount your efforts - what I've said is that your numbers represent only a minority group of the entire Marriott Aruba Ocean Club ownership, and that your efforts could have been better served if you'd done some things differently.
> 
> Nitpicking, I know, but the slightest difference can give things a whole new meaning.



Its nice to see we dont disagree on everything.  As for the entity that produced the report, I dont care either way so why would I contact them?.  If they were writing about me or my company or a company I cared about I might ask more questions but since I dont care I have no interest in contacting them. Too bad about our Celtics and are you looking forward to see Manny return to Fenway?  I was in a small pub for dinner where the entire place was decorated with World Series newspaper articles, it brought back great memories or a loved team.  Those were the days...


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 18, 2010)

On the one hand you have to be thrilled that the Celtics made it as far as they did, but on the other ....  Boy, this has been a tough, tough year for watching our teams go soooooo far into the playoffs and then pfffft, done.  I hate to even say anything about the Sox this season for fear of jinxing us all, but at least we still have more than half the season to let it all play out.

"A small pub decorated all over with World Series memorabilia ..."  HAHAHA - you've just described about half of all pubs in the city.  Gotta love it.

Oh, and yes I'll be cheering in front of the teevee for Manny.  He did some pretty stupid things and got out of town maybe a month or two later than he should have, but he still was a part of THOSE teams that gave us championships.


----------



## haleakala20 (Jun 19, 2010)

*Asia-Pacific Club (point-based)*

Only as an enhancement to the discussion:

That comment was in the minutes of the AP-advisory committee from November 2009:




ADVISORY COMMITTEE ELECTION

Allan Choy asked if the Developer, MVCI Asia Pacific Ltd, had used its votes in the election of the Advisory Committee. Rance Ryan confirmed that the Developer had used its votes.

Mr. Ryan explained that future elections of Advisory Committee members would be staggered in order to provide continuity on the Advisory  committee. Mr. Ryan explained that as 2009 saw the first election of Advisory Committee Members, the Developer had acted in the capacity of the
Nominating Committee to select candidates for the ballot. 
In the future, the Nominating Committee will consist of members of the Advisory Committee with a representative of the Developer acting as a coordinator/advisor.

The nominating committee for 2010 will be composed of Michael Oppenheimer, Allan Choy and Duncan Klein.



That club shows the direction, that MVCI wants to take, because it is the newest club in MVCI in the world.
There is a 5-7 person advisory committee and they will get managed by a board of directors much different to the ABOD known today. The board of directors consists of 2 members - one of them is appointed by the developer. I could not figure out, who might appoint the other one.

You will find those constructs in the new points-club of MVCI in the US.
The AP-club is in my believe the predecessor of the US-points-club. Therefore it will be a good source of understanding the new concepts.


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Jun 19, 2010)

lovearuba said:


> There are an unusual number of marriott supporters on this site, why is it so difficult to understand that not everyone shares your view



Does it strike you as "unusual" that customers who are brand loyal to Marriott might, as a result, own a Marriott timeshare, and pay peripheral attention to the writings on this board?

Our grandson would call that Rocket Science.

Or, perhaps, in keeping with your comment above ...."unusual number of Marriott supporters on this site." would you prefer a Bulletin Board for "Militant or Disastisfied Marriott Timeshare Owners?"


----------



## haleakala20 (Jun 19, 2010)

*clarification is nowhat militant*



EducatedConsumer said:


> Does it strike you as "unusual" that customers who are brand loyal to Marriott might, as a result, own a Marriott timeshare, and pay peripheral attention to the writings on this board?
> 
> Our grandson would call that Rocket Science.
> 
> Or, perhaps, in keeping with your comment above ...."unusual number of Marriott supporters on this site." would you prefer a Bulletin Board for "Militant or Disastisfied Marriott Timeshare Owners?"



I fear, that you are overreacting.

I'm in TUG since very few days, but I thougt to join, because thats THE forum to meet experienced owners. 
Is's a matter to put a forum against the arrogant divide and conquer startegie of MVCI. If MVCI would be like Marriott before 2005, we would only talk about our best vacation experiences.

But now the forum is discussing subjects, because MVCI is not acting foreseeable or predictable. The are acting from my view less ethical than it was all the years, when I bought their weeks.

Now it is for me more or less a forum to prevent the worst - lack of financial investment and a treatment between MVCI and owners that is not driven by a partnership. My feeling is, that there are managers acting that have only their shortterm-goals in their mind and they use the chance to act against the owners. But the timeshare-business is more longterm than a hotel company. Therefore all satisfied owners have to fear a more unfair treatment and a change in style to the only benefit of profit from MVCI.

I'm very much satisfied with Marriott, because I'm living in Marriotts and MVCI's most of my time. But that does not mean, that there are no cons, that should get pinpointed.


I'm not at all militant and I'm not even against MVCI, because I will have to live with MVCI for a long time (the rest of my life). They won't buy back my weeks and the market is unquestionable.


Therefore we should discuss and share, what we know. But on the other side, we do not need guardiens of MVCI to defend them, when they are no longer supporting the expectations, that they did built up by their sales guys.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 19, 2010)

haleakala20 said:


> Therefore we should discuss and share, what we know. But on the other side, we do not need guardiens of MVCI to defend them, when they are no longer supporting the expectations, that they did built up by their sales guys.



But that is what you will get in an open forum. People defending MVCI. They may not have had the same experiences that you have had. If you only had a one sided forum, it would be a witch hunt. That isn't good for open discussion. We need the guardians as much as we need the people who villainize them.


----------



## scrapngen (Jun 19, 2010)

haleakala20 said:


> I fear, that you are overreacting.
> 
> I'm in TUG since very few days, but I thougt to join, because thats THE forum to meet experienced owners.
> Is's a matter to put a forum against the arrogant divide and conquer startegie of MVCI. If MVCI would be like Marriott before 2005, we would only talk about our best vacation experiences.
> ...



Let me say "Welcome to TUG!" 

It's hard to be a newbie on this board, and I suspect it is even more challenging to start discussions that interest and concern you in a second language. (I believe you said German is your mother tongue somewhere) 
When people see a trend of posting with titles such as the one on this thread, they will use stronger terms. I don't believe this is a group of "guardians of Marriott" anymore than you feel you are "militant." 

I appreciate you trying to discuss your concerns with a group of experienced TS users. Just realise that Marriott owners, while concerned over new changes, are still a fairly happy bunch of owners for the most part. And some are not (see Aruba thread as ONE example)  It does not mean that they rubber-stamp or appreciate everything the Marriott company does, but that they are probably somewhere in the middle. This appears as positive Marriott support to someone who seems to be very dissatisfied. (once again, based on the various threads you have started in a short period of time) 

I think as people get more familiar with you and "your style" of writing, you will find that this is a group of owners with many differing opinions on a lot of topics who are happy to share those opinions in their styles.


----------



## haleakala20 (Jun 19, 2010)

*Thanks !*

Very good, thanks for your comments.

I will learn in time and after only some days I'm satisfied with the TUG, because I got really good informations and ideas. That would not have been, if I would have sitten at home having not the TUG group to communicate to.

Every comment was helpful!

How many owners of MVCI can be reached by TUG, how many are actively reading or actively writing? Do you know?

Please give me some time, to understand the Usergroup better. I was satisfied till 2009, but I got more and more concerns during 2009/2010.

Thanks, thats you try to understand me and my somewhat strange language.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 19, 2010)

haleakala20 said:


> How many owners of MVCI can be reached by TUG, how many are actively reading or actively writing? Do you know?



No specific statistics, but likely less than 1%.


----------



## modoaruba (Jun 19, 2010)

A quote that comes to mind is from Omar Bradley-
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants"
A bit out of it's own context but kind of summizes the reality of it all.


----------



## haleakala20 (Jun 20, 2010)

*The new destination points system*

The giant has published.

I think, that that is "ethical", even, when the winner is MVCI!

The owners will have to arrange with that new options.


----------



## lovearuba (Jun 20, 2010)

*Peripheral*



EducatedConsumer said:


> Does it strike you as "unusual" that customers who are brand loyal to Marriott might, as a result, own a Marriott timeshare, and pay peripheral attention to the writings on this board?
> 
> Our grandson would call that Rocket Science.
> 
> Or, perhaps, in keeping with your comment above ...."unusual number of Marriott supporters on this site." would you prefer a Bulletin Board for "Militant or Disastisfied Marriott Timeshare Owners?"



I am skeptical on whether peripheral  attention applies to posters here but I get your point, my comment was not meant to insult supporters but to encourage the new poster to continue to voice his concerns because it benefits all. I am also educated but obviously did not have enough prior to purchasing, I would have needed a law degree, I doubt if my being a rocket scientist would have helped.

There boards for concerned owners.
Us


----------



## modoaruba (Jun 20, 2010)

ecwinch said:


> JMO - but part of the problem here is that we think the HOA is a democracy - where every owner has an equal voice in the direction and outcome of the resort.
> 
> However if you look at the business structure, you will see that the HOA is really a corporation - albeit a non-profit one. As such, each owner is really just a shareholder in the corporate structure, with voting rights based on the number of units they own.
> 
> ...



I agree with you 100% as to what you stated.
The "not unethical" you mention might be correct in the corporate context you place it in. But IMO the ethics part are questionable at the point of sale and thus continues throughout the life of the ownership.
Hardly anyone reads through the contract and even if they do who would understand it? But still we became shareholders.Our own fault no doubt.
Most of us I believe are moral and ethical and it is hard to separate our concept of ethics to that of corporate ethics.
As was stated before we are the "cashcow" and have no profitable way out.
Look at the new point system that is being discussed.We as owners are always behind the eight ball.
There have been numerous class action suits against corporations due to what is perceived as ethical or not.
I myself being a multiple owner for 12 years never saw any of what is going on in the past few years coming.I never imagined the MFs and other fess escalating while my value of the TSs are devaluing and MVCI further devaluing their worth by going to a point system.
I never knew I can rent without the obligation of owning the liablity cheaper than our MFs.
Sometimes I regret having peeled away the curtain and seeing what is behind it.I sometimes wish I never would have known about this board and had stayed joined to the majority of the population of owners who just keep on paying what they are told without question and just enjoy the vacation.


----------



## haleakala20 (Jun 20, 2010)

*from the new points club thread*

That post on the new points club should really get answers.
What is different between NY and the other states?

What will be the problem of the European and the Phuket clubs?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Is New York even elegible for this new program?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann in CA View Post
"To participate in the Vacation Club Points and Vacation Club PlusPoints offer you must be a resident of the District of Columbia or a resident of any state in the U.S. excluding New York."


It sounds like New Yorkers are not even elegible for the new system - I hope this is correct because the new system sounds like a giant rip-off to this New Yorker. Maybe my beloved State of New York was smart enough to create a law which forbids excessive corporate greed and extortion.

I'm one of the most positive persons in the world (I even wrote on this thread that Marriott built their reputation on customer satisfaction and would never screw their customer base because that would be suicidal) - well I guess I was wrong because this new program has NOTHING to do with satisfying customer needs -this is all about excessive GREED from Marriott's obviously pathetic & misguided marketing team to create excessive profit.

The only thing I can say is that in the end Marriott will be the one to pay for this - with a ruined reputation and a lame new marketing scheme that falls flat on it's face. I find it insulting that Marriott have the nerve to even present this new program which is so obviosuly one-sided in their favor - how stupid do they think people are?

I'm all for Mariott enhancing profits by continuing to provide a quality product which offers genuine value to it's valued customers - but this is the opposite - this is a case of blind greed - and Marriott will get what they deserve!

Best wishes Marriott - you're gonna need it,
David

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



There are a lot of questions and I really can't believe a company to publish uncomplete information without any marketing presentation.


Perhaps the management is not only unethical to rip the owners even more than "cashcows". I'm loosing my faith into such a management, that wants only to manage their profit without any long term label management.
Such a incomplete concept and the silly introduction of it to the market shows, that management at MVCI is no longer committed to the 300.000 owners.
"What is Mr. Marriott jr. saying to such a contradictory approach compared to his initial ideas and committed offers to the owners."


----------



## haleakala20 (Jun 21, 2010)

*greed vs. "unethical"*

It's really something else.

Greed is always in the capitalistic world, where ethics are not able to control it.

Mr. Marriott jr. is the gallions person who promoted the MVCI weeks a a chance tor the future to beat the inflation "make vacation at prices of today..."

Did he say, that this would be true forever or only till 2078 or only 2056. It doesn't matter, because it was no longer true after the second year.
It's only marketing - somewhat within business ethics, because we are already used to that type of ethics since numerous years.


But what is happening now?
The owners have to pay the bill for left and unsold inventory. MVCI wants to get rid of it (hopefully they will start with building new inventory after that clearance).

It is too much greed to devalue the owners decision, to buy into MVCI.

Let me give you an example:
I own Cypress Harbour in the special season.
For three weeks in the same season but with different inventory weeks I will always get 2650 Club-points, but for one week I would have to pay 2675 and the other two weeks 2900 points to rent it back.
OK. thats the price for a crazy decision to create workload for MVCI.

When I want to exchange 2650 Club-points to MR-points with the ratioo of 1:32, I will receive  84.800 MR points.
When I traded into MR-points directly EOY the old way, I would get 110.000 MR points.

A loss of 25.600 point within the same company is a loss of 23% of value by using a wrong process.
This inconsistancy shows a type of wall hiding greed and some lack in ethics, to offer that the the companies clients.

Is there no quality management in MVCI to make logterm ideas consistent?

Now every owner has not only to shop in the market, they have even to shop within the same companies offers.


----------



## Dave M (Jun 21, 2010)

haleakala20 said:


> I own Cypress Harbour in the special season.
> For three weeks in the same season but with different inventory weeks I will always get 2650 Club-points, but for one week I would have to pay 2675 and the other two weeks 2900 points to rent it back.
> OK. thats the price for a crazy decision to create workload for MVCI.
> 
> ...


You missed a critical point. If you can currently trade your CH week for 110,000 points, you can still do that after joining (if you choose to do so) the points club. It's only new club points that you purchase (the equivalent of buying another timeshare) that have the new ratio of Marriott Rewards points to club points owned.


----------



## haleakala20 (Jun 22, 2010)

Dave M said:


> You missed a critical point. If you can currently trade your CH week for 110,000 points, you can still do that after joining (if you choose to do so) the points club. It's only new club points that you purchase (the equivalent of buying another timeshare) that have the new ratio of Marriott Rewards points to club points owned.



It is not critical - its a benefit with many more given.

Till now i could only trade my CH week into 110.000 MR-points EOY.
The years in between I had to deposit them with II for some fees when I would use them.
Now I can trade into Points at the points-club for no add'l costs (having three weeks at CH makes it a financial benefit)

I'm vewry pleased with having that options now with the new points-club.

Nevertheless I wanted to show, that not all options given by the different utilizations of the MVCI concepts will satisfy the owner automatically. Every owner has to find his beneficial chance for using the concepts for his type of making vacation best.


----------



## haleakala20 (Jun 24, 2010)

*No reply*

GregT
TUG Member

BBS Reg. Date: Jul 20, 07
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 441

Resorts: Marriott Maui Ocean Club (2 weeks), Worldmark and Wyndham (FairField)

All,

I've forwarded the link to this message to the senior management team of the Exchange Company, and to Lee Cunningham, who sent the email inviting some people (I've not gotten mine) to learn about the points program. However, my email is likely sitting in Spam filters.

I'd still like to see this thread as much as possible reflect owner letters directly to Marriott -- I can't find a direct way to get anyone to answer the skimming question, other than Breakage, which I consider an excuse. Thank you all for your comments and perspective.

All the best,

Greg

Sent to:

lee.cunningham@vacationclub.com
stephen.weisz@vacationclub.com;
joseph.bramuchi@vacationclub.com;
michael.cullen@vacationclub.com;
joel.eisemann@vacationclub.com
Last edited by GregT : June 24, 2010 at 04:41 AM. 





Isn't it very unethical of the management of the company that you trusted and invested into it, that the president does not react onto open letters?

My impression is, that there is a large fear of that management to express themselves.
Therefore my experience was, taht they normaslly do notz react onto owners questions.
There are even the liks between owners and management. Mr. Babich in the US  and Mr. Ryan in Asia and Europe, that like the treatment , not to responde.

I name that unethical, becauser they don't care for the past and the future, but they care for their fear to communicate to owners concerns about their decisions, that they know, that they are not unquestionable.

I would not expect any reaction.
But you might have thze cance to go to court. That's my solution already.


----------



## haleakala20 (May 10, 2011)

*Where does MVCI management publish their ideas?*

On February 14, 2011 the spinoff was published or launched.

Did anybody of the owners / TUGgers read any published letters, articles, published comments etc from the future MVCI-spinoff-management, what they are intending to do, how they will work, what their expectations might be or anything else, that clears the sky?

My feeling is, that the management did not publish anything till now - maybe, they might not know, what they want to get accomplished.

I think, that this is not the best situation for the 400.000 owners, being in and walking in through the fog.


----------

