# Letter from Polynesian Isles Re: DRI



## DianeNYS

Hi...I haven't been to TUG in 2 years or more, and admit that I haven't been paying attention anymore to the "politics" of timeshares, but just using or renting out our weeks with success. Today I received a letter from the Condo Association for Polynesian Isles in Kissimmee, and surprise! There apparently is a rumble going on among non-developer unit week owners to disassociate themselves from DRI for a variety of reasons that I haven't realized existed (except for the terrible rise in MFs and special assessments ever since the big hurricane that hit it a few years ago). 

I don't exactly know what leaving Diamond Resorts would accomplish for me besides most likely losing the 5500 club points I have with them attached to my 2BR unit, and I don't want to do that. But--are there ANY benefits to my voting to do this? And, if the majority decides to leave DRI, does that mean I HAVE to give up my points attached to DRI? How will that affect my using my week in the future? I can call DRI or the person who wrote the letter (or maybe not; there's just a fax # there with a Lawyer's name), but that will only give me biased information and quite possibly not the truth as to how it would affect me and my usage of my week/points. 

Does anyone here own at Polynesian Isles and have an idea of just what the problem is between that resort and DRI? And if you do own there, do you have an opinion as to whether it would be better to break up with DRI or not? Today is first I've heard of this "controversy" and I really am in the dark and pretty confused...Help!!!  Thanks, Diane


----------



## dougp26364

All it will mean is that DRI will no longer manage the resort. In the past, resorts have jetisoned Sunterra but, those units that were in THE Club stayed in THE Club. An example would be Gatlinburg Town Square. GTS was once managed by Sunterra but, they decided to get rid of Sunterra and bring in another management company. DRI still lists units availabe for internal exchange with GTS. Those are the units sold by Sunterra that remain members of THE Club. 

You're association is probably wanting to get rid of DRI due to their management fee's. From what I can tell, they're considerably higher than most. It may also be that DRI is trying to dictate changes that they feel aren't necessary, needed or wanted by the owners of this resort. If that's the case, it's time to move them out and bring someone in that will manage the resort the way the owners of the resort want it managed.


----------



## falmouth3

Hmmm.  I didn't get that letter yet.  I'll keep my eyes peeled.  

My maintenance fees have actually gone down at PI from the 2008 assessment. Not a lot, but definitely down.

Sue


----------



## lv_maui

*DRI's fees*



DianeNYS said:


> There apparently is a rumble going on among non-developer unit week owners to disassociate themselves from DRI for a variety of reasons that I haven't realized existed (except for the terrible rise in MFs and special assessments ever since the big hurricane that hit it a few years ago).



There have been general comments throughout timeshare boards that have complained that DRI is increasing maintenance fees by amounts that do not seem to be reasonable.  I personally witnessed a DRI representative make the comment that DRI realized that they were not charging HOA's for the appropriate amount for software, reservations, etc.

You probably received the letter since the non developer owners need to campaign against DRI to gain your support.  In my opinion, if DRI is replaced, Club will not go away and you will not lose your points since DRI would be deluged with unhappy customers.


----------



## DianeNYS

*Thank you all for responding*

I appreciate the information; in retrospect, I guess it would be similar to what happened with Coral Sands in Miami Beach (now called Westgate South Beach). When I bought it (actually from Club Sunterra), it became part of my ClubSun points (it's the purchase that brought my CPGV into the point system with them). Once Westgate purchased it (or took it over, whatever), it didn't change my ownership and usage in any way, except with who got the MFs and what those ended up costing. 

All in all, I *like* DRI (though the fees HAVE gone up, and that I *don't* like), and do not want to lose my PI points in their system. Does anyone know anything more about PI Owner's complaints in this instance? The letter I received yesterday really was the first I've heard of any discontent...Thanks again!


----------



## timeos2

*DRI does not have to manage the resort to have Club Points there*



DianeNYS said:


> I appreciate the information; in retrospect, I guess it would be similar to what happened with Coral Sands in Miami Beach (now called Westgate South Beach). When I bought it (actually from Club Sunterra), it became part of my ClubSun points (it's the purchase that brought my CPGV into the point system with them). Once Westgate purchased it (or took it over, whatever), it didn't change my ownership and usage in any way, except with who got the MFs and what those ended up costing.
> 
> All in all, I *like* DRI (though the fees HAVE gone up, and that I *don't* like), and do not want to lose my PI points in their system. Does anyone know anything more about PI Owner's complaints in this instance? The letter I received yesterday really was the first I've heard of any discontent...Thanks again!



Cypress Pointe Resort / Grande Villas, a few miles away from PI, changed management from DRI (then Sunterra/RPM) back in 2001. It does NOT affect your membership in Club - it just changes who manages the resort. And may result in lower or at least stable fees.  As one who has gone through it I would recommend a change to a non-DRI management even as I enjoy my DRI Club membership. The best of both worlds.


----------



## DianeNYS

*Thanks for replying, John*

I was HOPING you would join in the conversation here, John!   (In the past, when I used to read/post here all the time, I would value your input more than you will ever know! You've helped me with Sunterra and CP1 & 2 info in the past).  

I guess I'll fill out my proxy and let the Board of Directors have my vote to do what they feel is best; we live in upstate NY and never ever make ANY of our owner meetings--every timeshare we own is in Florida--so I don't have enough knowledge of the specifics here to NOT let the Board of Directors have my vote. I guess. Right?  I'll trust their judgment...

Thanks again for giving me your thoughts on this issue.


----------



## timeos2

DianeNYS said:


> I was HOPING you would join in the conversation here, John!   (In the past, when I used to read/post here all the time, I would value your input more than you will ever know! You've helped me with Sunterra and CP1 & 2 info in the past).
> 
> I guess I'll fill out my proxy and let the Board of Directors have my vote to do what they feel is best; we live in upstate NY and never ever make ANY of our owner meetings--every timeshare we own is in Florida--so I don't have enough knowledge of the specifics here to NOT let the Board of Directors have my vote. I guess. Right?  I'll trust their judgment...
> 
> Thanks again for giving me your thoughts on this issue.



Hi Diane and thank you for the kind comments.  I think your plan is perfect as it sounds like the BOD at Poly are doing their duty of looking out for the owners. Giving them the proxy will hopefully result in a satisfactory outcome.


----------



## tatvan

*Polynesian Isles Proxy Letter*

Hi, 
We received the proxy letter and we are sending it back for the Homeowners Board of Directors to vote on our behalf. There is an immediate timeframe that must be met.
Diamond Resorts International is our management company who are looking out for their own interest. The Board is elected to look out for our interest. The Board are owners themselves.
DRI has excessively increased our maintenence fees.With them gone I do believe our maintenence fees will come down. In addition, I noticed DRI has their name /logo on linen and on other areas of our resort property. It looks like they really want to take over from the actual owners. They have forgotten  who the owners are and they must believe because we are not on site they can do whatever and we'll never know the difference. 
Owners have to stand together to get rid of them. I believe the Board Members, who are owners, will find a management company to replace them... a management company that will work on the owners behalf. 
Tell any one and everyone you know who are owners at Polynesian Isles
to send back the proxy vote to the HOA. 
And I think Polynesian Isles is broken into 2 different HOA. So that one HOA has already gotten rid of DRI and the other HOA (us) are trying to do the same. So not everyone who is an owner at Polynsian Isles Resort will receive a proxy..again only the owners who still have DRI for management...for now.
We need to spread the word about the timeline to get the proxy back to the HOA so they can vote for us.


----------



## tatvan

timeos2 said:


> Hi Diane and thank you for the kind comments.  I think your plan is perfect as it sounds like the BOD at Poly are doing their duty of looking out for the owners. Giving them the proxy will hopefully result in a satisfactory outcome.


Hi, 

I wrote my thoughts about the proxy we recieved this week.

Hope my comments help to make you comfortable with your decision.

Thelma


----------



## tatvan

DianeNYS said:


> I was HOPING you would join in the conversation here, John!   (In the past, when I used to read/post here all the time, I would value your input more than you will ever know! You've helped me with Sunterra and CP1 & 2 info in the past).
> 
> I guess I'll fill out my proxy and let the Board of Directors have my vote to do what they feel is best; we live in upstate NY and never ever make ANY of our owner meetings--every timeshare we own is in Florida--so I don't have enough knowledge of the specifics here to NOT let the Board of Directors have my vote. I guess. Right?  I'll trust their judgment...
> 
> Thanks again for giving me your thoughts on this issue.


Hi Diane,

I thought I was leaving you an email and it went to John... 
Anyway just to say I made a comment regarding the proxy letter we recieved earlier this week and we hope our comment make you feel comfortable with your decision to send it in asap.

Thelma


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Timeshare Soap & Timeshare Towels.*




tatvan said:


> I noticed DRI has their name /logo on linen and on other areas of our resort property.


I would not care to see the DRI emblem emblazoned all over the property at Cypress Pointe Resort & Cypress Pointe Grande Villas, but I would not object to DRI-branded timeshare soap & timeshare linens if -- _if_ -- they are of premium quality _and_ are made available at no higher cost than comparable premium quality unbranded items. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## tatvan

*Polynesian Isles*

Hi Alan,

I think branding ought to be reserved for owners not management. When you pick up anything on property it ought to reflect the property's name... its the owners items not the management's items. I agree quality does matter however regardless the property owners name ought to be promoted not the management of the property.

I really like your signature. Quite creative and thoughtful.

Thelma
_P.S.I'm new with posting to this site. I can't recall how I may have included the prior post above my post. _


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Timeshare Soap Saga.*




tatvan said:


> I think branding ought to be reserved for owners not management. When you pick up anything on property it ought to reflect the property's name... its the owners items not the management's items. I agree quality does matter however regardless the property owners name ought to be promoted not the management of the property.
> 
> I really like your signature. Quite creative and thoughtful


I wouldn't want to pay anything extra for DRI-branded timeshare soap, etc.  But I wouldn't consider the timeshare company's emblem on the soap & shampoo, etc., a negative. 

Ideally, even when an independent, owner-controlled HOA takes over & installs an independent management company, the relationship between the timeshare company & the owners of the resort should remain positive as possible.  

That is, I would expect the timeshare company to want the resort to reflect positively on the timeshare company & likewise I would expect the resort to want the timeshare company to reflect positively on the resort. 

Even though the 2 are not apt to see eye to eye on all issues, their interests overlap more than they diverge & thus it is better on both sides of the divide for the parties to operate cooperatively rather than combatively. 

Cypress Pointe Resort once furnished all the units with high-quality timeshare soap, etc., in wrappers & containers emblazoned with the resort's emblem on every item.  Then costs went way up -- not for the actual soaps & toiletries, but for the custom-logo labeling.  So the independent HOA-BOD, taking care to see that every dollar spent returns value to us regular, every-day, walking-around timeshare owners, dropped the Cypress Pointe labeling & went with premium quality toiletries bearing the manufacturer's regular brand labels, saving serious money. 

If for the same price or less DRI would supply DRI-branded timeshare soap & toiletries of comparable premium quality, that would be OK.  The resort, although independently managed, is still affiliated with DRI & DRI is still the _Developer Of Record_ at that timeshare.  Nothing is gained by camouflaging that, nor is there any reason to emphasize it unduly.  But where there is an advantage to the resort -- i.e., to the owners more than to the timeshare company -- in going with DRI-branded goods, then I say _Bring On The D.R.I. Timeshare Soap._ 

_Full Disclosure*:*_  I am not in the DRI fan club nor do I belong to DRI's timeshare-exchange "club," not that there's anything wrong with T*.*H*.*E*.* Club other than the fact that (A) it costs big bux to get in & (B) when I'm done with it I can't sell it to anybody else.  By me, nothing the timeshare companies sell at full freight is worth the money, & that goes for DRI's "club" right along with all the other big bux offerings pushed by all the other timeshare companies.

_PS*:*_  Thanks for your kind words about my TUG-BBS "signature."  Sometimes I think it contains Too Much Information.  Other times I think it's OK.  So it goes. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## dougp26364

At the Suite's at Fall Creek, the premium toiletries did not have a private label and no DRI branding. We'll be there next month so I'll see if any changes have been made.


----------



## tatvan

*Polynesian Isles*



AwayWeGo said:


> I wouldn't want to pay anything extra for DRI-branded timeshare soap, etc.  But I wouldn't consider the timeshare company's emblem on the soap & shampoo, etc., a negative.
> 
> Ideally, even when an independent, owner-controlled HOA takes over & installs an independent management company, the relationship between the timeshare company & the owners of the resort should remain positive as possible.
> 
> That is, I would expect the timeshare company to want the resort to reflect positively on the timeshare company & likewise I would expect the resort to want the timeshare company to reflect positively on the resort.
> 
> Even though the 2 are not apt to see eye to eye on all issues, their interests overlap more than they diverge & thus it is better on both sides of the divide for the parties to operate cooperatively rather than combatively.
> 
> Cypress Pointe Resort once furnished all the units with high-quality timeshare soap, etc., in wrappers & containers emblazoned with the resort's emblem on every item.  Then costs went way up -- not for the actual soaps & toiletries, but for the custom-logo labeling.  So the independent HOA-BOD, taking care to see that every dollar spent returns value to us regular, every-day, walking-around timeshare owners, dropped the Cypress Pointe labeling & went with premium quality toiletries bearing the manufacturer's regular brand labels, saving serious money.
> 
> If for the same price or less DRI would supply DRI-branded timeshare soap & toiletries of comparable premium quality, that would be OK.  The resort, although independently managed, is still affiliated with DRI & DRI is still the _Developer Of Record_ at that timeshare.  Nothing is gained by camouflaging that, nor is there any reason to emphasize it unduly.  But where there is an advantage to the resort -- i.e., to the owners more than to the timeshare company -- in going with DRI-branded goods, then I say _Bring On The D.R.I. Timeshare Soap._
> 
> _Full Disclosure*:*_  I am not in the DRI fan club nor do I belong to DRI's timeshare-exchange "club," not that there's anything wrong with T*.*H*.*E*.* Club other than the fact that (A) it costs big bux to get in & (B) when I'm done with it I can't sell it to anybody else.  By me, nothing the timeshare companies sell at full freight is worth the money, & that goes for DRI's "club" right along with all the other big bux offerings pushed by all the other timeshare companies.
> 
> _PS*:*_  Thanks for your kind words about my TUG-BBS "signature."  Sometimes I think it contains Too Much Information.  Other times I think it's OK.  So it goes.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



Let me first say I started with my first post discussing the need for owners of Polynesian Isles to return the proxy they may have received....quickly.
 I had secondarily mentioned Diamond Resort, our management company, placing their name on items throughout the owners resort and had mentioned branding on linen as an example. 
So just to be understood and to keep the primary point primary and not to get side tracked on a secondary mere mention, I do agree with you regarding keeping cost down whenever possible. I do agree with being quite content having the manufacturer branding on items indicating HOA is keeping cost down whenever possible.
 I think when you choose the resort to own you'll choose one you believe demonstrates quality with linen,toileteries,furniture etc. When I walk around a resort for the first time and thought their furniture was flimsy junk, with low thread linen and cheap looking toileteries, I would not be interested in purchasing at that resort. For me, quality does matter for my comfort however again I can be content on the manufacturer branding in effects to control cost.
Yes I do agree with your statement... "thus it is better on both sides of the divide for the parties to operate cooperatively rather than combatively." .... whenever possible parties ought to striveto be cooperative however I do think the HOA has the last word.

Thelma


----------



## pedro47

Sound like this resort needs a mgt change.


----------



## timeos2

*It appears they have new management*



pedro47 said:


> Sound like this resort needs a mgt change.



From what I'm hearing that's what they are getting. Apparently SPM (an independent management company like VRI) has been given the contract over RPM/Diamond for at least parts of the resort (I'm not quite sure if there are multiple sections or Associations at Poly but it sort of sounds like there are). Like many management changes while it may be best for the owners/resort in the long run the short term effect is a real upheaval.  I hope they work things out, get a good independent management in place and owners are happy.


----------



## falmouth3

tatvan said:


> Hi,
> And I think Polynesian Isles is broken into 2 different HOA. So that one HOA has already gotten rid of DRI and the other HOA (us) are trying to do the same. So not everyone who is an owner at Polynsian Isles Resort will receive a proxy..again only the owners who still have DRI for management...for now.
> .



I must be in the second group.  I still have not received the proxy and my MF went down about $30 this year.

Sue


----------



## Chanook729

*Poly -*

Sue,

What phase are you in?  I got my proxy about a week ago. I am glad to see discussion on the subject here, as I was out of the loop on events at PI. Does anyone know of a HOA group for Poly?  If not that might be an idea to float past the board so that information can be shared with the owners.


----------



## tatvan

*Polyesian Isles HOA*



Chanook729 said:


> Sue,
> 
> What phase are you in?  I got my proxy about a week ago. I am glad to see discussion on the subject here, as I was out of the loop on events at PI. Does anyone know of a HOA group for Poly?  If not that might be an idea to float past the board so that information can be shared with the owners.



We received our proxy letter mid week last week so yes you are in the phase with us who still has DRI. We're sending our proxy back for the HOA to case  on our behalf ... an owners. The HomeOwners Association is / has The Board Directors who are property owners. They are in place working for us and they are who sent out the proxy letter. In one of the post , I think from John Chase, said when we have new management all will be well at the resort... I say 'Amen' to that statement!

Thelma


----------



## falmouth3

Chanook729 said:


> Sue,
> 
> What phase are you in?  I got my proxy about a week ago. I am glad to see discussion on the subject here, as I was out of the loop on events at PI. Does anyone know of a HOA group for Poly?  If not that might be an idea to float past the board so that information can be shared with the owners.



I'm in Phase IV.  I haven't been there yet.  A co-worker is using my week this year and I did an exchange with a TUGGER last year.

Sue


----------



## DianeNYS

*Thank you EVERYone for the great discussion*

  I had company this weekend and this is the first I could get online, and I'm so happy that you came in here to give me your opinions and experiences with this issue! 

I'm an owner in Phase I (bought re-sale over the internet, and folded into Club Sunterra for only $500--since I was already a member by virtue of CPGV and Coral Sands--right before they discontinued the practice). I really had no idea of HOA's and management companies and struggles for control, etc. (duh!), since I've always just gone on my merry way staying at our timeshares w/o incident. I'm learning a lot in this thread...

Oh yeah...I filled out and mailed my Proxy with a "yes" to getting DRI out of PI, right away on Friday (3/20) morning, so I'm hoping all ends well for every owner...We'll be staying there next February, and I'm curious as to how things might change--for the better!  

One thing we did after purchasing our week and immediately turning it into Club SunOptions--at the advice of the kind Club Sunterra manager who helped us with the conversion--was to add our 2 grown sons' names to the entire SunOption Contract. According to her, when our timeshares that are included in the Club are passed on to them, they will be already in the Club so the points/options will go along to them at the same time (all of our tmeshares are deeded properties), at no cost at that time. We didn't pay anything extra at the time of the PI transaction, either, to add their names. 

I'm hoping that what she told us was true, and that my sons will have full usage of the Diamond Resort Club point system regarding all those timeshsares, just as promised (well, by Club Sunterra, anyway). Does anyone have any experience with this type of transaction? Does it sound like this is something we can count on? I never worried about it before (Diamond Resorts just took over our stuff, and I never thought of asking them about it...), but now I'm wondering...As far as I know, all of our names should have just gone along with our Club Sunterra holdings to Diamond Resorts "as is," no? 

Thanks again for everyone's input...I know a lot more than I did when I first posted, and I feel comfortable with my decision to say yes on the proxy and send it in.


----------



## dougp26364

The only worry I would have about putting our childrens names on a contract is that they can be held liable for fee's and dues under that contract. I would never assume our kids would want our timeshares after we pass on. I would rather them have the option to decide to accept the timeshares and all the liablities that go along with ownership. Should they not want them, by having them on the contract, they'll have to find a way to get rid of them.

But that's just my opinion and how I view things. For all I know, I could be completely wrong. I just know that when my mother passed away, the companies that attempted to tell me I was personally responsible for her bills were told good luck. My mothers estate was responsible for those bills/liabilities and, once probate was over, so was any chance they had for payment.


----------



## DianeNYS

*Hi, Doug*

"The only worry I would have about putting our childrens names on a contract is that they can be held liable for fee's and dues under that contract. I would never assume our kids would want our timeshares after we pass on."

I totally agree with you here, and I neglected to say in my post above that I did check with my sons first, and as we've owned timeshares since 1990 (and got into the Sunterra Club in 1999), they've ALways wanted to own what we own, and use the properties as we've used them (staying and renting out what we can't use). They can't WAIT  . But, yes...get the kids' permission first, before obligating them... Good point!


----------



## dougp26364

DianeNYS said:


> "The only worry I would have about putting our childrens names on a contract is that they can be held liable for fee's and dues under that contract. I would never assume our kids would want our timeshares after we pass on."
> 
> I totally agree with you here, and I neglected to say in my post above that I did check with my sons first, and as we've owned timeshares since 1990 (and got into the Sunterra Club in 1999), they've ALways wanted to own what we own, and use the properties as we've used them (staying and renting out what we can't use). They can't WAIT  . But, yes...get the kids' permission first, before obligating them... Good point!



Then I don't see any problem with what you've done. They won't have to go through any messy probate issues with the properties or worry about future changes to THE Club rules for inheriting not only your deeded weeks but joining THE Club. 

It seems to me that the rules for joining THE Club remain a moving target. Somewhere I believe it's in writing that you can join THE Club simply by paying a $2,995 but, I keep seeing posts where DRI salesmen insist that you MUST buy additional points to get deeded weeks into THE Club. By having their names on the title and on THE Club membership, all those problems should be avoided.

With our kids, we haven't put their names on any of the titles. First, they don't appear to want them and second, I'm not sure they could handle the MF's. Our SIL has a timeshare in Florida that he's never set foot into. This year he finally contacted the resort and rented out his week. Otherwise, he's always paid the MF's but never got any usage from his week. I'd hate to put the kids on the hook for something that they likely would not use at this time.


----------



## youmehs

*If it ain't broke don't fix it! I'm voting Diamond!*

Dear Polynesian Isles I Owner:
PLEASE READ THIS IMPORTANT NOTICE.  FAILURE TO DO SO COULD COST YOU MORE THAN $600 THIS YEAR AND PUT YOU AT RISK OF A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.
Your Board of Directors has called a Special Meeting of the Owners and is asking you to terminate your management agreement with Diamond Resorts Management, Inc.  The mailing your Board sent you includes a great deal of inaccurate information and omits other important facts we think you need to make an informed decision. 
This letter from Diamond is intended to clarify the situation at Polynesian Isles so you can make the right choice and oppose the cancellation of our management contract.  We ask that you vote against terminating the management agreement with Diamond to put an end to this process that could cost you hundreds of dollars a year in increased fees.  
Your Board states that you should terminate your management contract with Diamond due to “Rising Costs of Diamond Resorts.”  This could not be further from the truth.  The facts are that Diamond has not increased fees in over seven years and has agreed to keep its management fees at the same amount for at least the next three years.  Furthermore, in 2007 Diamond did not charge you any management fees for a year and a half, saving you more than $150,000 or $61 per week.  Your Board has already made a decision and voted to retain the services of SPM Resorts, Inc. to replace Diamond as your manager.  They have done this without any input from you, and we think that is wrong.  Based on the information available to us, we believe the contract with SPM could increase your management fees by MORE THAN $100,000 A YEAR or MORE THAN $40 PER WEEK IMMEDIATELY.  We understand that this new contract allows SPM to charge you between 6.5% and 10% of all of the money that is deposited into your bank accounts.  We think it will be almost impossible to properly budget for a variable charge like this.  This could put you at risk of ending up in a deficit situation, which could result in a special assessment.  Diamond understands how tough these economic times are, and we are committed to keeping our management fees flat over the next 3 ½ years.
Your Board of Directors claims that Diamond is somehow responsible for “rising delinquencies, no collection efforts.”  Again, this is absolutely false.  Obviously, Diamond has no control over whether owners fall behind in their payments in these difficult times, but Diamond has a program in place to pay 100% of the bad debt your Association incurs as a result.  Through the Diamond program, your Association recovers 100% of these delinquent amounts each year. This is a HUGE benefit to your Association and to you as an owner.  We are told that SPM has no similar program.   The estimated bad debt for your Association in 2009 alone is projected to be in excess of $400,000.  This is ALMOST HALF A MILLION DOLLARS or $163 DOLLARS PER WEEK PER YEAR that each paying owner will be required to pay if the Diamond management agreement is terminated.  As a result, your Association will likely incur additional delinquencies and may be forced to adopt a special assessment to cover any shortfalls. 
Diamond also pays all of the collection costs for these delinquent accounts, including all of the foreclosure costs.  Based on the information we have, the management agreement your Board proposes to enter with SPM does not require SPM to perform any of these functions for you.  Instead, as we understand it, the SPM contract actually requires the Association to hire a law firm and pay attorneys’ fees for these services.  Your Board of Directors has already signed a contract with a law firm to handle these collections.  Please keep in mind that Diamond does not charge you anything for this service, but for some reason your Board is willing to spend your  money on attorneys’ fees to perform the same functions you are currently receiving for free.  This law firm will be charging you $175 an hour to perform these services, plus $150 for each demand letter, plus $350 to file a lien, plus an additional $500 for other legal services.  This means that you may be paying more than $1,000 on delinquent accounts before they even go to foreclosure.  Your Board has also agreed to pay this law firm an additional fee of approximately $2,000 per foreclosure to process foreclosures.  Again, Diamond is paying all of these costs for you; you pay nothing.  Right now your Association has more than 648 delinquent weeks.  If you allow your Board to move forward with the termination of the Diamond management agreement and to allow this law firm to handle your collections, you and your fellow owners could be looking at paying more than ONE MILLION DOLLARS or MORE THAN $400 PER WEEK for the exact same services that you are currently receiving from Diamond for free.
$40 per week + $163 per week + $400 per week = $603 per week extra to have SPM as your management company.  WHAT IS YOUR BOARD THINKING?
Your Board made several other false statements in its mailing, including: 1) “A majority of the owners have voiced their discontent with Diamond Resorts.”  In fact, the great majority of the owners are 100% satisfied with the services provided by Diamond and have no desire to discontinue our relationship.  2) Diamond is somehow responsible for the decrease in RCI scores.  In fact, this decrease was actually primarily the fault of the previous resort manager and Board members, who chose not to take Diamond’s advice on the RCI requirements.  Diamond brought in a new resort manager.  As a result your current RCI scores are well above Gold Crown benchmark.  Your Board seems not to care about continuing with refurbishments to keep your Gold Crown rating, but rest assured that Diamond does.  3) Diamond does not care about the owners.  This is ridiculous.  Diamond cares about each and every one of you and wants to ensure that your hard-earned money is protected along with the quality of your future vacations.
You need to be aware that your Board has also been spending thousands of dollars of your money on unnecessary legal fees.  This is an unbudgeted expense that may well result in a special assessment.  Your Board is spending this unbudgeted money without your approval, and we think that is wrong.
SPM is now managing another Association within Polynesian Isles.  Despite our best efforts to assist SPM, the transition has been neither smooth nor professional, and Poly IV guests are suffering due to SPM’s lack of preparation for this task.  SPM actually refused to check guests in this past week, causing severe hardship on these families and damaging their vacation experience.  Is SPM the management company you want to care for your vacation?  We don’t think so.  
You should receive written materials within a few days and you will need to respond immediately.  In order to ensure that your vote counts, we need to receive your proxy on or before April 4, 2009.  In the meantime, if you have any questions, or would like to speak with someone at Diamond about this situation or this solicitation, or would like to receive your proxy by email or by fax, please feel free to contact Marilyn Windsor at 702.823.7340 or at Marilyn.Windsor@diamondresorts.com, or Leanne Morrill at 702.823.7309 or at Leanne.Morrill@diamondresorts.com.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Clarification, Please.*

Hi _youmehs_ --

It is not clear from your entry whether on the 1 hand the reading material you provided is an official expression from DRI by a DRI spokesperson, or whether on the other hand you are a regular, walking-around, everyday, timeshare-owning newcomer to TUG-BBS who just happens to lead off by forwarding a piece of pro-DRI material that came from DRI & that may or may not represent your personal views.

That is, I'm assuming that both you & the reading material are from DRI -- an assumption that might not necessarily be correct, even though it's a natural assumption to make.  

If that assumption is wrong, please set the record straight so that we'll know where you're coming from. 

Thanks & welcome to TUG. 

_Full Disclosure*:*_  I don't own at Polynesian Isles.  I _do_ own at 2 nearby DRI timeshares where management control passed some years back from DRI's predecessor to an independent, owner-controlled HOA-BOD, which installed a an independent, non-DRI management company to handle resort operations.  That has been a big success -- so much so that based on my limited exposure as a regular, walking-around timeshare owner who bought resale in 2002, I think the Polynesian Isle owners could advantageously go & do likewise if -- _if_ -- they have a smart, savvy, no-nonsense owner-controlled HOA-BOD calling the shots for them.  By me, it's not necessarily a good idea to take DRI's word for it that the Polynesian Isles HOA-BOD is fibbing to the owners.  I mean, it's not like DRI doesn't have its own ax to grind, bigtime.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## DianeNYS

*Okay...*

Now I'm REALLY confused


----------



## timeos2

*Owners - Look into what is going on and get a qualified Board that represents you*

As it turns out although I do not own at PI I have heard from both sides of the recently announced management change.  As is often the case both sides feel they are in the right and can make a strong appeal for support.  So what is an owner to do? 

In general I am as strong a supporter of independent Boards as you will find anywhere. But simply being independent doesn't guarantee that a given Board is qualified. And the smaller the member count the more important the qualifications of each becomes.  The second idea I tout for any Board / Association is openness and a willingness to communicate. The interaction between the elected Board members and the owners is what should drive the actions of the Board. 

After hearing from both sides in this case it certainly seems there are some serious issues. The standard approach of support the Board may need some qualification.  I would urge all owners to look carefully at the information being sent out, look at your ability to reach the sitting Board members (are they publishing contact information and freely granting access to very important documents like any potential management agreement that you will pay for and granting access to financial information giving the status of the Association(s)?) and, if at all possible, speak up as to what YOU see as the best move going forward.   Ideally attend this meeting (yeah, I know it's not easy but having actual owners on site would be the very best way to assure a good outcome). 

Only those that own at PI can make this come out in their best interest.  It is short notice, its not particularly convenient and it takes some effort but if you own there take the next few days to get fully informed and let your thoughts be known. I do believe in the long run the proper decisions will be made but it won't happen if owners don't dig in and make it happen. Act now as this is your best opportunity to have a say in how your resort will operate going forward.


----------



## td032309

*Latest Info for Polynesian Isles IV Owners...*

Dear Fellow Owners:

This letter is to update you on the current status of the management situation at Polynesian Isles IV.  As members of the Board of Directors, who are elected by you, the owners, we feel it is extremely important that you stay informed and updated on the situation at the Resort.

This Board feels that our primary focus should be to see the Resort maintained at the highest possible level, while expenditures are kept at the lowest possible level.  One of the most important elements of the Resort is its management company.  We want a management company that is going to put the owners first, work together with the Board and the owners in a friendly and supportive manner, place a real emphasis on Polynesian Isles IV, and be accountable to the Board and to the owners for its actions.  The Board and many of the owners were not satisfied with the situation at our Resort.  The main problem was what we believed the management contract to be one-sided and not in the best interest of the owners.  We also had a sense that Polynesian Isles IV was just not important and that the owners did not matter.

Because of this situation, the Board of Directors made a decision to terminate the management agreement with Diamond Resorts International in accordance with the termination provisions of the contract.  Following interviews with other management company candidates, your Board unanimously decided to sign a management contract with SPM Resorts, Inc. to take over the management of Polynesian Isles IV on March 16, 2009.  SPM Resorts, Inc., with its main office located in Myrtle Beach, SC, manages 28 different associations totaling over 87,000 owners.  In the termination notice to Diamond Resorts International, the Board asked that they cooperate with SPM Resorts prior to March 16, 2009.  It was our hope to have a smooth and orderly transition from one management company to the other, so as to avoid any unnecessary problems or expenses for the owners.

Unfortunately, Diamond Resorts International and MMG Development, Inc. have chosen to not allow SPM Resorts use of the front desk or maintenance facility, even though Polynesian IV contributes to 60% of the cost for the maintenance of these buildings.  However, please be assured that we have arranged for one of the units within Polynesian IV to be used for the front desk and maintenance is located off site until these issues are resolved. This Board will not allow Diamond to impose its will over what is best for this association and what is best for you, the owners.  

If you are calling Diamond Resorts International, MMG, or the Resort regarding maintenance fees or reservations, please call (843) 238-5000 temporarily and your call will be directed to the person responsible for handling your situation.

We look forward to a long and mutually beneficial relationship with the new management company, SPM Resorts.  The Board is excited by some of the ideas SPM Resorts has, and we hope that this management change will provide the owners with better service and make Polynesian Isles IV a better Resort.  We want to thank you for your continued support of your elected Board of Directors, and we promise to continue to do the best job we can for you and for the Resort. 

Sincerely,


Terry Byrd
Phyllis Skora
Rick Johnson


----------



## falmouth3

Very interesting letter from PI IV.  What was the date on that letter?  I don't recall seeing it.

I'm glad you posted it since I plan on calling for my 2010 reservaton soon.  Now at least I have the correct number to get to the right people.

Sue


----------



## TUGBrian

I was contacted by some of the board members at the various PI resorts, I am helping them get online here to post their opinions and information for owners/TUGGERS to read.


----------



## pgnewarkboy

td032309 said:


> Dear Fellow Owners:
> 
> This letter is to update you on the current status of the management situation at Polynesian Isles IV.  As members of the Board of Directors, who are elected by you, the owners, we feel it is extremely important that you stay informed and updated on the situation at the Resort.
> 
> This Board feels that our primary focus should be to see the Resort maintained at the highest possible level, while expenditures are kept at the lowest possible level.  One of the most important elements of the Resort is its management company.  We want a management company that is going to put the owners first, work together with the Board and the owners in a friendly and supportive manner, place a real emphasis on Polynesian Isles IV, and be accountable to the Board and to the owners for its actions.  The Board and many of the owners were not satisfied with the situation at our Resort.  The main problem was what we believed the management contract to be one-sided and not in the best interest of the owners.  We also had a sense that Polynesian Isles IV was just not important and that the owners did not matter.
> 
> Because of this situation, the Board of Directors made a decision to terminate the management agreement with Diamond Resorts International in accordance with the termination provisions of the contract.  Following interviews with other management company candidates, your Board unanimously decided to sign a management contract with SPM Resorts, Inc. to take over the management of Polynesian Isles IV on March 16, 2009.  SPM Resorts, Inc., with its main office located in Myrtle Beach, SC, manages 28 different associations totaling over 87,000 owners.  In the termination notice to Diamond Resorts International, the Board asked that they cooperate with SPM Resorts prior to March 16, 2009.  It was our hope to have a smooth and orderly transition from one management company to the other, so as to avoid any unnecessary problems or expenses for the owners.
> 
> Unfortunately, Diamond Resorts International and MMG Development, Inc. have chosen to not allow SPM Resorts use of the front desk or maintenance facility, even though Polynesian IV contributes to 60% of the cost for the maintenance of these buildings.  However, please be assured that we have arranged for one of the units within Polynesian IV to be used for the front desk and maintenance is located off site until these issues are resolved. This Board will not allow Diamond to impose its will over what is best for this association and what is best for you, the owners.
> 
> If you are calling Diamond Resorts International, MMG, or the Resort regarding maintenance fees or reservations, please call (843) 238-5000 temporarily and your call will be directed to the person responsible for handling your situation.
> 
> We look forward to a long and mutually beneficial relationship with the new management company, SPM Resorts.  The Board is excited by some of the ideas SPM Resorts has, and we hope that this management change will provide the owners with better service and make Polynesian Isles IV a better Resort.  We want to thank you for your continued support of your elected Board of Directors, and we promise to continue to do the best job we can for you and for the Resort.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> 
> Terry Byrd
> Phyllis Skora
> Rick Johnson




I don't own here and have no stake in the matter.  As far as I am concerned you can make any decision you want and it makes no difference to me.  

Having read the above "information" from your board, I conclude that it says basically nothing.  It states their "feelings".  "Feelings" don't take care of the bills or the resort.  If it were me in your shoes, I would DEMAND specifics from your board as to how they will save you money.  I would also DEMAND that they answer the specific allegations made by DRI concerning collections.


----------



## goldman

*Proxty Battle Heats UP!*



DianeNYS said:


> Hi...I haven't been to TUG in 2 years or more, and admit that I haven't been paying attention anymore to the "politics" of timeshares, but just using or renting out our weeks with success. Today I received a letter from the Condo Association for Polynesian Isles in Kissimmee, and surprise! There apparently is a rumble going on among non-developer unit week owners to disassociate themselves from DRI for a variety of reasons that I haven't realized existed (except for the terrible rise in MFs and special assessments ever since the big hurricane that hit it a few years ago).
> 
> I don't exactly know what leaving Diamond Resorts would accomplish for me besides most likely losing the 5500 club points I have with them attached to my 2BR unit, and I don't want to do that. But--are there ANY benefits to my voting to do this? And, if the majority decides to leave DRI, does that mean I HAVE to give up my points attached to DRI? How will that affect my using my week in the future? I can call DRI or the person who wrote the letter (or maybe not; there's just a fax # there with a Lawyer's name), but that will only give me biased information and quite possibly not the truth as to how it would affect me and my usage of my week/points.
> 
> Does anyone here own at Polynesian Isles and have an idea of just what the problem is between that resort and DRI? And if you do own there, do you have an opinion as to whether it would be better to break up with DRI or not? Today is first I've heard of this "controversy" and I really am in the dark and pretty confused...Help!!!  Thanks, Diane




Diamond International has their facts all wrong and the owners need to have a complete understand of what has led up to these actions by the board. Anyone interested in knowing the true facts are asked to get in touch with one of the board members. SPM has offered a plan by which we can operate our resort more profitably and with less problems between management and the owners. VOTE your blue proxy and let Diamond be releived of this responsibility at Polynesian Isles. Your Board of Director have spent hundreds of hours in your behalf to get you the best management team available. We have been through tuff times before, and now is no time to lay down and let Diamond run over us!


----------



## goldman

*Polynesian Isles 1 Board of Directors*

Dear Fellow Owners,

By now you should have received your proxies to discharge Diamond Resorts as your management company.  It is IMPERATIVE that you return these proxies as quickly as possible so that a vote may take place on April 7, 2009.  Your Board has decided to pursue this action based on just a few of the following reasons:

•	The rising management fees levied  and increased expenses proposed by Diamond Resorts

•	Diamond Resorts’ continued failure to pay assessments and late fees on their units until after our annual audit reveals them.

•	Loss of the resort’s Gold Crown rating and failure to inform the Board of Directors that the status was in jeopardy.

•	Conflict of interest - since Diamond Resorts is the developer, at times they have not act in the best interest of the owners, but rather in their best interest.

•	Rising delinquencies with little or no collection efforts, resulting in an increasing number of unit weeks Diamond gains control of due to the Interval Recovery Agreement.


Polynesian Isles Condominium IV Association, Inc. has already been successful in terminating Diamond Resorts as their management company and retained SPM Resorts, Inc.  SPM Resorts, Inc.  has a very successful history of keeping maintenance fees at a minimum while increasing quality.  They have hired Dottie Arnold (who was our General Manager for 10 years) to return as Polynesian IV’s General Manager. 

We do not wish to see our wonderful resort operated as two separate properties, causing undue inconvenience to our owners and guests, but as one property under one general manager.  Please appoint me, Carlos Costa – President of Polynesian Isles Resort Condominium Association, Inc., to vote your proxies, sign, date, and either mail or fax (407-849-1119) immediately.  IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU EITHER ATTEND THE MEETING OR PROVIDE YOUR PROXY.  

Thank you!



Carlos Costa
President
Polynesian Isles Resort Condominium Association, Inc.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*A Few Words By Way Of Introduction Would Be A Plus.*

Hi _goldman_ -- 

Where are you coming from & what is your connection (if any) with the timeshare & the HOA-BOD ? 

I find it easier to sort these things out when I already know the people (e.g., if they're regular TUG-BBS participants), & when newcomers spell out a little something about their background. 

Welcome to TUG -- & lets hear it for independent, owner-controlled timeshare HOA-BODs. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## goldman

dougp26364 said:


> All it will mean is that DRI will no longer manage the resort. In the past, resorts have jetisoned Sunterra but, those units that were in THE Club stayed in THE Club. An example would be Gatlinburg Town Square. GTS was once managed by Sunterra but, they decided to get rid of Sunterra and bring in another management company. DRI still lists units availabe for internal exchange with GTS. Those are the units sold by Sunterra that remain members of THE Club.
> 
> You're association is probably wanting to get rid of DRI due to their management fee's. From what I can tell, they're considerably higher than most. It may also be that DRI is trying to dictate changes that they feel aren't necessary, needed or wanted by the owners of this resort. If that's the case, it's time to move them out and bring someone in that will manage the resort the way the owners of the resort want it managed.


You are right, they are out to control without regard to the owners will being!


----------



## goldman

DianeNYS said:


> Hi...I haven't been to TUG in 2 years or more, and admit that I haven't been paying attention anymore to the "politics" of timeshares, but just using or renting out our weeks with success. Today I received a letter from the Condo Association for Polynesian Isles in Kissimmee, and surprise! There apparently is a rumble going on among non-developer unit week owners to disassociate themselves from DRI for a variety of reasons that I haven't realized existed (except for the terrible rise in MFs and special assessments ever since the big hurricane that hit it a few years ago).
> 
> I don't exactly know what leaving Diamond Resorts would accomplish for me besides most likely losing the 5500 club points I have with them attached to my 2BR unit, and I don't want to do that. But--are there ANY benefits to my voting to do this? And, if the majority decides to leave DRI, does that mean I HAVE to give up my points attached to DRI? How will that affect my using my week in the future? I can call DRI or the person who wrote the letter (or maybe not; there's just a fax # there with a Lawyer's name), but that will only give me biased information and quite possibly not the truth as to how it would affect me and my usage of my week/points.
> 
> Does anyone here own at Polynesian Isles and have an idea of just what the problem is between that resort and DRI? And if you do own there, do you have an opinion as to whether it would be better to break up with DRI or not? Today is first I've heard of this "controversy" and I really am in the dark and pretty confused...Help!!!  Thanks, Diane


CLUB stays the same, no lose of points! SPM will honor every owner!


----------



## goldman

goldman said:


> CLUB stays the same, no lose of points! SPM will honor every owner!


Two letters have been posted to help answer your questions, but we as your board of director are trying to do what is best for you!


----------



## goldman

*Opps! we have the rest of the letter*

POLYNESIAN ISLES RESORT CONDOMINIUM 
ASSOCIATION, INC.

Dear Owners:

You have received a proxy requesting your vote to discharge Diamond Resorts as your management company.  It is our belief that it’s in the owners’ best interest to hire an outside, independent management company who has no ties to sales, but whose sole purpose is to manage our resort and act in the owner’s best interest.   You have now also received a proxy and mailing by Diamond stating that under SPM your management fees will increase that is simply not true.  SPM manages many resorts in the Orlando area and said maintenance fees for those resorts are less than we are currently paying with Diamond.  It is the Boards intention to try and decrease the maintenance fees for all owners.

Diamond Resorts was notified last June of our unhappiness with their management and was advised that we would be interviewing new management companies to see what they could offer.  Diamond even suggested we contact VRI, SPM, & Evolve Management.  Together, after interviewing several management companies and speaking with Resort Boards of Directors, both the Polynesian Phase I and Phase IV Boards of Directors felt confident SPM Resorts, Inc. was the management company who had the best “track record” and who best met our needs.  As a result, they were hired by the Polynesian Isles Resort IV Board and are already on property servicing our guests, in spite of all the “road blocks” thrown up at them by Diamond Resorts.  They have been denied access to the Clubhouse and Maintenance/Housekeeping Building and are conducting check-ins/check-outs in Unit 812.    

This week, our Phase I owners were asked to attend a meeting conducted by Diamond and were given a very distorted, bleak picture of why we chose to change management companies and how this change would adversely affect the owners, costing them a great deal more money in maintenance fees.  The truth is, had we not decided to make the change, we would have found ourselves in serious financial trouble, and owners would not have been given priority in their ability to book reservations, as they always have been in the past, because Diamond is using the space for marketing and wholesaler guests who will take timeshare tours.  Owners are telling us that Diamond has now begun harassing them while staying on property, trying to get their vote to keep Diamond on as Phase I’s management company.   While Diamond is telling owners they are doing everything possible to make the transition as seamless as possible, again, that is far from the truth.  In fact, Diamond is making this transition as difficult as possible for everyone.  Owners staying at the resort are seeing first-hand the problems.  Now, our owners’ main concern is that we won’t get enough owners to return their proxies so that this change in management can quickly be made.

As fellow owners and your Board of Directors, our goal has always been to put you first and foremost, above all other guests, and provide you with the best possible vacation facilities at the lowest price.  Diamond is telling everyone Polynesian Isles can function under two separate management companies and operate as two separate resorts.  Our resort is far too small for this, and the quaint, enjoyable atmosphere as we now know it would be lost forever.  NO ONE WANTS THIS!  PLEASE GIVE US YOUR SUPPORT and return your proxy designating me, Carlos Costa, to vote your proxy allowing us to discharge Diamond, so that we might once again function as one property, under one management team, with Dottie Arnold as our General Manager.  PLEASE FAX YOUR “BLUE PROXY” TODAY to 407-849-1119.

Sincerely,


Carlos Costa
Gary Emken
Eddie Lofton


----------



## goldman

TUGBrian said:


> I was contacted by some of the board members at the various PI resorts, I am helping them get online here to post their opinions and information for owners/TUGGERS to read.


Thank you so very much for your help! We just want people to hear the truth and make good decisions! If the board didn't care they wouldn't do this job for FREE! Therefore, supporting your board in this decision is very important and URGENT!


----------



## AwayWeGo

*No Special Breaks For The Timeshare Company.*




goldman said:


> Diamond Resorts’ continued failure to pay assessments and late fees on their units until after our annual audit reveals them.


It's bad enough if the timeshare company stiffs the resort on payment of fees for company-owned units. 

It's worse if the HOA-BOD lets the timeshare company get away with it. 

No E-Z payment plans for company-owned units unless E-Z payment plans are also offered to the regular, everyday, walking-around timeshare owners. 

No break for the timeshare company on company-owned units that are in arrears on fees & assessments.  If the company is not paid up by the due date, then they're locked out of their units, period, same as a regular walking-around owner would be.  

If being locked out for non-payment happens to goof up the timeshare company's use of the company-owned unit -- e.g, if they'd given a club member a reservation to check in, rented it out, deposited it with RCI or I-I, etc., -- that's tough & that's strictly on the timeshare company, not the HOA-BOD. 

The same obligations & consequences apply to the timeshare company that apply to all the individual owners of units at the resorts.  

Unfortunately, it sounds like the habit that has set in at Polynesian with regard to tolerating timeshare company laxness can best be summed up in the observation _Give'm An Inch & They'll Stick It In Your Ear_. 

It that's how it's been in the past, then _no more_ -- from here on out starting now. 

Fair is fair. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## lv_maui

*Goldman, how can you make this statement*



goldman said:


> CLUB stays the same, no lose of points! SPM will honor every owner!



Are you in a position to make statements for the Diamond Club?


----------



## ecwinch

goldman said:


> You are right, they are out to control without regard to the owners will being!



Goldman - could you respond to the post below. Generally speaking we dislike shills, but we do make an exception for passionate owners.  

Given your sudden appearance, and nature of your responses, we just want to understand where you are coming from. Ignore the large type - Alan is not shouting at you.  



AwayWeGo said:


> Hi _goldman_ --
> 
> Where are you coming from & what is your connection (if any) with the timeshare & the HOA-BOD ?
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## pgnewarkboy

Somebody on the board ought to know HOW MUCH MONEY YOU WILL BE SAVING by switching.  I haven't seen that information posted.  A logical question is WHY NOT!  The new management team should have already told the board what the cost will be.  Voters should know what that will be. This information is within the known universe of things that can be easily determined.

If you Polynesian people don't care to know how much it will cost under new management that is up to you.  It sounds to me like your board is not disclosing very much information in support of the change. Good luck.  Best Wishes.  Dream on.  Thankfully, it is not my problem.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Large Type, Shmarge Type.*




ecwinch said:


> Ignore the large type - Alan is not shouting at you.


Ignore at at your peril. 

Besides, it's only _Medium_ (i.e. Size 3) -- not _Large_ (i.e., Size 7).

To illustrate the difference, this entire entry is in Size 3 except the following brief example of *. . .* 

Size 7​
*. . .* not that there's anything wrong with Size 7. 

So it goes. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## happytraveler1

Do  you Polynesian Owners attend Owner Meetings held at the resort?  That could help you better understand the current situation for the Board.


----------



## ecwinch

AwayWeGo said:


> So it goes.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



Alan - I understand SIZE does matter. 

No offense intended, and I hope none was taken. My apologies if I offended you.


----------



## goldman

*Poly I at Polynesian Isles Kissimmee*

Several months ago Diamond International Management Company notified the Board of Director of a immediate 15% increase in management fees. The Board PolyI and Poly 4(Polynesian Isles, Inc.) in Kissimmee, Florida immediately rejected that increase and notified Diamond International Management we were not happy and they suggested we look for another management company. We have done so and have been in touch with several other companies, before settling on the SPM company out of Mytle Beach, SC as being the best fit for our size resort. Now Diamond is doing everything possible to block a smooth transition from Diamond to SPM. We are seeking an affirmative vote of confidence from our fellow owners in Poly 1 as Poly 4 has already made the first step in the transition process to SPM management. Immediate action is required by our owners in order to avoid any additional costly court action for Poly 1. This has not been a quick decison, in fact hundreds of hours have been devoted to serious consideration of who would provide the best management for our owners.


----------



## happytraveler1

Are you folks aware that board members are individual owners and volunteer to  be on the board.  There is no paycheck for their time as would be for developer/management company employees.  Please contact SPM at the phone # given in  the letter the board sent.   Perhaps they could contact board members for you.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Apology Not Needed, Not Wanted, Not Called For.  No Harm & No Foul.*




ecwinch said:


> Alan - I understand SIZE does matter.
> 
> No offense intended, and I hope none was taken. My apologies if I offended you.


Offended ? 

Me ?  

_Nonsense ! _

Your concern is appreciated, however, even though no offense was taken -- nor could it have been.  

Regarding size, etc., the way I look at it is that if it were not OK to use those various type sizes & styles, then the Grand Pro would not have given us those options here on TUG-BBS. 

A point I was trying to make earlier in this discussion topic is that the information being presented here by various new arrivals at TUG-BBS would be easier to understand & evaluate if the newbies would, in effect, introduce themselves in their initial TUG-BBS entries.  Otherwise we're left to guess where they're coming from, what ax they might be grinding, whose interests they are championing, etc. 

(Just saying.) 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Extra Freebies For H. O. A. - B. O. D. Members.*




happytraveler1 said:


> There is no paycheck for their time as would be for developer/management company employees.


But they can stuff all the extra Timeshare Soap they want into their suitcases when they head home after unpaid, volunteer HOA-BOD meetings -- if they do it when nobody's looking. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## dougp26364

happytraveler1 said:


> Are you folks aware that board members are individual owners and volunteer to  be on the board.  There is no paycheck for their time as would be for developer/management company employees.  Please contact SPM at the phone # given in  the letter the board sent.   Perhaps they could contact board members for you.




Board members can be owners in name only. There are many developer employee's that own a unit and sit on the BOD's. Not just with DRI, but with many (most) developer managed resorts.


----------



## DianeNYS

*I'm MORE than confused...*

 This morning I found an email from DRI, rebutting what I received in the mail from my Poly I HOA Board. I don't know WHO to believe, and I'm not sure now what we should be doing over there! I did already sign and return my proxy to my Board last week; haven't actually received anything in the mail from DRI to sign and return (though they are encouraging me in their email to print out the proxy attachment--not pasted below, for brevity--and fill out and fax back to them, or fill out online). Here is their email to me:

"Dear Polynesian I Resort Owner,

By now you have received notice that your Board of Directors has called a Special Meeting of the Owners and is asking you to terminate your management agreement with Diamond Resorts Management, Inc. The mailing and follow-up email your Board sent you includes inaccurate information and omits other important facts, the most important of which is that a change in management could cost you more than $600 per week in maintenance fees this year and put you at risk of a special assessment. Before you make a decision, you need to know:


Diamond has not increased fees in over seven years and has agreed to keep its management fees the same for at least the next three years. But your Board—who are the only three people that can increase your fees—want you to give them the power to change management companies—a change that could increase your management fees by $40 per week immediately.       

Diamond is not responsible for the decrease in RCI scores. Since Diamond brought in a new resort manager late last summer, your current RCI scores are tracking well above Gold Crown status.

Diamond is an owner just like you and owns 15% of the inventory at Polynesian Isles I. This means that for every dollar in maintenance fees collected or spent, Diamond’s share is 15 cents. Diamond thinks like an owner and wants you to have a memorable vacation experience at a quality resort for a reasonable price.

Sometimes owners cannot make their maintenance fee payments and delinquent accounts result, especially now in these economically difficult times. It is ridiculous to think that Diamond can control this. 

Instead, Diamond assumes responsibility for carrying these delinquent owners off of your shoulders and pays 100% of these fees and the costs incurred to either recover the fees or recover the inventory. This process takes years. In 2009 alone, Diamond will relieve you from paying almost an additional $163 per week in delinquent fees. 

Recovery fees would cost you more than $400 per week for the same services you are receiving from Diamond for free. Under management by Diamond, you are assured to be 100% collected each year. We are told that SPM does not offer this service. Currently more than 30% of your fellow owners are delinquent. Without Diamond’s assistance, you will be required to increase your operating budget to include these delinquent fees.

Please carefully review the attached proxy immediately. We are asking you to appoint Linda Riddle to vote your proxy. Your signed, dated proxy must be returned no later than April 4, 2009.  If you do not want to wait to receive your materials in the mail, you may return this proxy  1) by email of a scanned or pdf copy of this proxy to polyproxy@smartinfo.us; or  2) by facsimile to (610) 683-5616. Or you can complete this proxy online at: https://smartinfo.us/polyproxy. In order to return your proxy online, you will need to enter the following information:

     Member Number:     XXXXX
     Election Validation Number:      XXXXX
     Time Share Unit XXX, Unit Week XX"


I am confused over who is right and who is wrong; I want my timeshare week to be safe and sound and not end up costing me thousands of dollars to own, in the future. I don't know enough about anything at this point to make an intelligent decision, and I can't leave town for Florida (especially in such a short timeframe!!) to investigate to get to the bottom of this. I'm pretty sad about it all right now...I wish I had an unbiased, totally on the ball in-the-know advocate here...{{{{sigh}}}}


----------



## AwayWeGo

*I Dunno Either.  But Maybe I Can Help Suss It Out For You.*




DianeNYS said:


> This morning I found an email from DRI, rebutting what I received in the mail from my Poly I HOA Board. I don't know WHO to believe, and I'm not sure now what we should be doing over there!


Me neither. 

And fortunately for me, I don't have a dog in this fight. 

However that may be, if I were forced to choose between the timeshare company's version of the situation & the independent HOA-BOD's version of it, knowing no more about it than can be divined by reading the competing claims & counterclaims -- that is, having to pretty much take a shot in the dark -- then I'd go with the independent, owner-controlled HOA-BOD over the timeshare company in a flash. 

Look at where they're coming from. 

The timeshare company's interest is in the bottom line of the profit-loss statement for the benefit of the corporate shareholders. 

The independent, owner-controlled HOA-BOD's interest is in running the resort for the benefit of the regular, walking-around timeshare owners. 

If that's all we know for sure, then which of those is more likely to be telling it the way it is ? 

_Duh._ 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## DianeNYS

*Thank you, Alan!*

  Even if I called the people on the emails from both DRI and the HOA, I wouldn't know who to believe!!! They are all so convincing and sincere in their beliefs that I'm befuddled...


----------



## falmouth3

_The timeshare company's interest is in the bottom line of the profit-loss statement for the benefit of the corporate shareholders. 

The independent, owner-controlled HOA-BOD's interest is in running the resort for the benefit of the regular, walking-around timeshare owners. 

If that's all we know for sure, then which of those is more likely to be telling it the way it is ? _


I agree with you, Alan.

Sue


----------



## lv_maui

*Hold on Here*



falmouth3 said:


> [The independent, owner-controlled HOA-BOD's interest is in running the resort for the benefit of the regular, walking-around timeshare owners.



There are three things that I bring up.

First, Board of Directors do not always represent the interests of all owners. Most times, they are the ones that return year after year to the home resort.  For the majority of owners who exchange, the Board does not represent the same interest.

Second, Boards of Directors do not get a paycheck, but they do usually get paid expenses for their trips to board meetings which for many is very enjoyable.  Take away these, and see how many would continue to be on the Board.

Third, I am not saying this is occurring, but Boards can be easily wooed by third party management companies.  I know of 3 examples where the President accepted freebies from bidding mgmt companies 

So, just because you do not know the facts, do not assme that the Board is making the right decision.


----------



## lv_maui

*Who is telling the truth*



goldman said:


> Several months ago Diamond International Management Company notified the Board of Director of a immediate 15% increase in management fees.



We have an easy question here.  Goldman is stating the above and DRI is stating the complete oppposite. 

_"Diamond has not increased fees in over seven years and has agreed to keep its management fees the same for at least the next three years."_

Can Goldman answer this question?  And also the one about DRI Club that I previously aske


----------



## lv_maui

*I agree with you*



pgnewarkboy said:


> Somebody on the board ought to know HOW MUCH MONEY YOU WILL BE SAVING by switching.  I haven't seen that information posted.  A logical question is WHY NOT!



Finally, someone that is a veteran poster has a good post.  Too many newbies posting with the "good news" to be relied upon.


----------



## lv_maui

*I have to admit that this is true*



dougp26364 said:


> Board members can be owners in name only. There are many developer employee's that own a unit and sit on the BOD's. Not just with DRI, but with many (most) developer managed resorts.



I agree with this.  I know an example of a company that purposely deeded units over to employees so that they can run as owners vs. developer members.  To some degree, this was the start of the demise of them.  

For Poly, obviously, this is not the concern.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Assuming Nussing.*




lv_maui said:


> So, just because you do not know the facts, do not assme that the Board is making the right decision.


Absolutely correct. 

However, when I can't get all the facts & when what factual information I can glean is incomplete or inconsistent or conflicting & all I know for sure is that 1 bunch is company-controlled & the other is independent (i.e., non-company) & owner-controlled, then by me the odds are I'm better off tilting toward the independent, owner-controlled HOA-BOD.  

Just being non-company & independent & owner-controlled is no guarantee that an HOA-BOD is honest & competent & all that.  

But it's a start. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## lv_maui

*Resort Manager*

My memory is not that good, but if I remember, the Board at Poly was "attached" to the Resort Manager, Dottie.  Now that was many moons ago.  I think I read somewhere that Dottie was replaced by DRI recently.  Is that really the crux of the problem?

This is another interesting topic when resort managers tend to try and befriend the Board versus their employer.  It can be very interesting.


----------



## lv_maui

*We can agree to disagree*



AwayWeGo said:


> Absolutely correct.
> 
> However, when I can't get all the facts & when what factual information I can glean is incomplete or inconsistent or conflicting & all I know for sure is that 1 bunch is company-controlled & the other is independent (i.e., non-company) & owner-controlled, then by me the odds are I'm better off tilting toward the independent, owner-controlled HOA-BOD.
> 
> Just being non-company & independent & owner-controlled is no guarantee that an HOA-BOD is honest & competent & all that.
> 
> But it's a start.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​




I do not assume this.

Board members do not always make them competent.  I know of an example of a Board member who aged too much and started to miss meetings and fall asleep during them.  

Let me ask this.  Do these type of battles take place with HGVC, Marriott, Starwood, etc.?


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Yes.*




lv_maui said:


> Do these type of battles take place with HGVC, Marriott, Starwood, etc.?


Click here for a clue. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## timeos2

*Nothing Unique*



lv_maui said:


> Let me ask this.  Do these type of battles take place with HGVC, Marriott, Starwood, etc.?



Yes, they do. Look around for the various threads and you'll see them all represented. It is a very common situation and problem.


----------



## timeos2

*Management / Boards cannot undo what you paid for - even exchange services*



lv_maui said:


> Are you in a position to make statements for the Diamond Club?



The use of Diamond Club, except for Trust members, is voluntary. It amounts to another RCI/II type option for exchange.  The fact that Diamond does or does not operate the resort as management does NOT impact the ability of the Club member to use previously assigned Club memberships. They would still get XXX points each year for use within DRI Club regardless of who operates the resort as long as the member stays current with annual Club fees (and resort fees but those are billed separately from Club). It is often referred to as "grandfathering" the points / membership as new members may or may not be able to sign up with Club if the management changes depending on what the situation with sales presence is at a given resort. Again DRI does not have to be the management in order to be the on-site sales organization. 

So it is safe to say that regardless of who ends up as management those owners that opted for DRI Club will still be in the Club and have the traading / use rights that carries with it.


----------



## goldman

*Open Letter to Poly Owners*

Dear Owners,
Thanks! Please unbderstand it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to respond to each of you individually.

I recieved 1256 responses. Iam a VOLUNTEER spending countless hours on this project. IY IS IMPORTANT to the viability of our resort that we respond to the letter and send the proxie in A.S.A.P.!!!

Diamond is up to no good threatening your board members with law suits and attempting to gain control of OUR resort. Tell your friends they must be stopped and control returned to the home owners association.

Many owners have points and are unsure how this effects them. The points system or club is TOTALLY separate from the resort ownership and will operate as always with no disruption. SPM if awarded the management contract manages many other resorts and club or points exit there. Diamond is under a contractual obligation to club memebers to provide exchanges.
Thank you for your understanding,
Carlos A. Costa


----------



## lv_maui

*Dottie should be flattered with all this attention!*



goldman said:


> Diamond is up to no good threatening your board members with law suits and attempting to gain control of OUR resort.



What would be the grounds for them to sue the Board members or the HOA when you would be terminating their agreement in accordance with it?  Have they really said that in writing or is this just an assumption?  Everything here that I read does not threaten that from DRI.  

I still think it is all about Dottie!

I do not own at Poly but I own at other DRI resorts and I do not think it is good when Club seperates from DRI management.  I am not saying it is not possible, but I think it is not optimal.


----------



## pgnewarkboy

I am trying to stay out of this but I can't because of what I see going on.  The decision to stay with DRI or go with another company should be made on facts and facts alone.  Goldman does not present any facts - at least on this thread.   That is a warning sign to me.  DRI made very specific statements about managment fees and collections.  Goldman has not refuted these statements or addressed them in any way on this board.  The board will be making a monetary decision that impacts every owner at the resort.  Before obligating the owner's money, the HOA board should clearly detail the managment costs under the proposed new managment agreement.  If the HOA board does not know what, if any, savings there will be, they would not get my proxy were I an owner.  If they know and don't want to tell the owners that is suspicious to say the least.  It is one or the other at this point.


----------



## ecwinch

pgnewarkboy said:


> Goldman does not present any facts - at least on this thread.   That is a warning sign to me.



I am glad that someone else see this as a warning sign. Like you, I was going to stay out of this one, but it is troublesome when you have a new member popping in and making one-sided posts without responding to followups questions or clarification.

And how many different versions of the letter/e-mail from DRI are there?


----------



## goldman

*Poly 1*

The Board of Directors of Poly 1 were carrying on business as usual until we recieved notice of the 15% increase in fees from Diamond. At that point it become apparent we were missing something, the Diamond Finacials have always been hard to read, and we began to make inquiries in charges and discovered there might be a better way. Since Diamond had invited to inquiry of other companies we did so, in fact into three other companies. They all sent us their information which we read and studied, which has brought us to this place. We are asking our home owners association to consider changing management companies. Poly 1 as many Floridian was hit be the hurricanes which caused the increase in owners fees, we have also just began a complete renovation of all the bathrooms. Maintance of Florida properties has it own set of extra costs built in, and requires the over sight of a good management organization. We have presented to our owners a proposal which we feel is cost effective and should keep our costs as low as possibly. Can't give you firm figures, because we do not have a go ahead from our owners to change management company. The next step would be to provide our owner with all the details, if they vote in the affirmative. We have been told in the past if we remain with Diamond we can expect increases in our fees. However, board members are volunteers and can only do what the owners chose to do.


----------



## lv_maui

*In reponse to Goldman/Mr. Carlos Costa*

With all due respect and in my opinion, Goldman/Mr. Carlos Costa is not making much sense here.  Let me address his recent response:

1. *The Board of Directors of Poly 1 were carrying on business as usual until we recieved notice of the 15% increase in fees from Diamond.* I have asked this before.  DRI states in a letter that they were willing to freeze their fees for 3+ years.  Goldman makes this statement with no back up.  This is either right or wrong.  What is the true story and how was the Board notified.

2.  *At that point it become apparent we were missing something, the Diamond Finacials have always been hard to read, and we began to make inquiries in charges and discovered there might be a better way. * You are saying that you are missing something because of this conversation.  Financials are hard to read???  Financials are not hard to read as they are pretty standard stuff and saying it now after attending how many board meetings does not speak well for past performance

3  *Since Diamond had invited to inquiry of other companies we did so, in fact into three other companies. They all sent us their information which we read and studied, which has brought us to this place.*  Hold on here.  There are many other reasons that this all started per all of the above posts.  Getting bids for management companies is NOT what got you here.  I still say that the real issue is that some board members had allegiance to Dottie Arnold.

4.  *We are asking our home owners association to consider changing management companies. Poly 1 as many Floridian was hit be the hurricanes which caused the increase in owners fees, we have also just began a complete renovation of all the bathrooms. Maintance of Florida properties has it own set of extra costs built in, and requires the over sight of a good management organization. * I agree that holding management companies at close attention is a good practice.  

5.  *We have presented to our owners a proposal which we feel is cost effective and should keep our costs as low as possibly. Can't give you firm figures, because we do not have a go ahead from our owners to change management company. The next step would be to provide our owner with all the details, if they vote in the affirmative. *  HOW CAN YOU NOT GIVE FIRM FIGURES!!!!  How did you evaulate the bids then?  Did you just decide who was the best looking!!  Alright, I am out of control.  But it is ludicrous and malfeasance to say, lets make the change and we will figure out the numbers later.  Absolutely, the worse thing that a volunteer Board of Director could do with my maintenance fees.

6.  *We have been told in the past if we remain with Diamond we can expect increases in our fees.*Another statement with no support as Diamond has put in writing that there will be no increase in fees.  

7.  *However, board members are volunteers and can only do what the owners chose to do*.  Yes, I agree BUT it is wrong if you have put it in writing to the owners information that is not factual to sway the owners into giving you the proxy.  If you do not give factual information, and things go haywire as a consequence, I hope that your D&O insurance is up to date and adequate.  I say this as somewhat comical but it might not be a bad idea.

Ok, I am about to state that I am not going to make any more posts as my wife is asking me to do "honey do's".  If she only knew what I was doing, she would not be happy.  I spend too much time with the Board that I am on as it is.


----------



## Chanook729

*Huh???*

We have presented to our owners a proposal which we feel is cost effective and should keep our costs as low as possibly. Can't give you firm figures, because we do not have a go ahead from our owners to change management company. The next step would be to provide our owner with all the details, if they vote in the affirmative. HOW CAN YOU NOT GIVE FIRM FIGURES!!!! How did you evaulate the bids then? Did you just decide who was the best looking!! Alright, I am out of control. But it is ludicrous and malfeasance to say, lets make the change and we will figure out the numbers later. Absolutely, the worse thing that a volunteer Board of Director could do with my maintenance fees.


I don't know all the fancy cut and paste... But this really got to me.  As an owner in Phase I, I never received the proposal. Every proposal I have ever seen INCLUDES firm figures so that you can make an EDUCATED decision.  I have yet to see one that says... Look at all our pretty pictures, we are the best, we will save you money...  Cost?  Cost?  That is a small detail we can work out later, and by the way - Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...  Or is it a woman?  Maybe this is all about Dottie....

 Check the D&O, I know of at least one owner who feels like he might have just gotten snowed into signing a bs proxy "for the good of the association"


-John

 I knew I should have bought at CP


----------



## tatvan

*Polynesian Isles Proxy(s)*

Hi All,
I had  hip replacement surgery last week so was not on my computer. Today is my first day back reading the discussions since prior to last week. 
Today,I opened mail from DRI which after reading their side of the story made me want to see IF there was any discussion on this matter. Glad to see all the good,interesting and thoughtful information posted.
I do not think the person saying they are Carlos Costa actually is Carlos Costa under the name of Goldman.... I just don't think so.
   I live in Massachusetts as does Carlos Costa. When I first received the 'blue proxy' with a letter from the HOA I seached and found him. What first struck me about Carlos when I seached him was he lives and works in Massachusetts... we both are in Southeastern MA. 
What made me first want to reach him in the first place was on the 'blue proxy' with a letter, his name was there as having wrote the letter however his name was not 'stamped' nor 'signed'. I thought he should have signed the document sent somehow. So I wanted to make sure the letter was from him before I even started to think about what we were going to do about 'the vote'. I found his number called him ...left a message and he called me back. 
 We spoke a long time. He is an actual walk around member who has volunteered his time for a long time as a board member. He told me how long but I forget...(when he called me back it was around 9:30PM... that's late nite for me and we talked a long time)I remember him referring to original board members who have since past away leaving him to carry the torch on behalf of the resort owners. Carlos is and has been president for awhile.
Carlos talks very specific clear and direct. This person saying he is Carlos does not answer questions and does not seem to speak the way Carlos talks. I could be wrong prehaps writing on computer IS quite different than talking over the phone.. but it just doesn't feel like Carlos to me. I have never met Carlos have spoken to him that one time. 
When we spoke about how they were going to reach all the owners in time for the vote, I did HIGHLY encouage him to become a TUG member and to get on the forum and talk about the matter. He was not familair with TUG ...they were basically relying on the letter sent out and hoping for the best. (I told him he can hope while I pray the information gets out)He said he was going to look into TUG but I don't think goldman is him.
Since I recieved the 'yellowproxy' I have placed another call to Carlos. I am waiting to hear back from him.
I think when you don't know these people on either side its hard to make decisions. On a number of the post I read posters stated it may be best to go with the walk around owner Board of Directors. When I do speak with him again I will have more very specific questions for him, after all these post I've read. I will encouage him or have him encourage someone else on the board to address the questions TUG members have presented. 
When talking to Carlos he told me he's a financial planner so he is in a busy season at the moment so this may be why he may not have posted .... 

Oh and something else Carlos had mentioned to me on that phone conversation.... he had to fly down to Florida at his own expense to appear in court on behalf of HOA. I think he said it was in February. Having something do to with whether or not DRI had been given ' proper notice' regarding some matter... he had to testify they had not but he had some GOOD reason they had not and told me the judge didn't want to hear his reason. I asked him why didn't the lawyers speak on his behalf to the judge and says the judge had 'tunnel vision'.. all that to say BOD may have expenses to go the meetings but not to special things like this example... he paid out of pocket.

Thelma

P.S.Some of the posters to this discussion mentioned 'newbies'...I don't I'm a newbie since I've been a TUG member for maybe over 10 years however I could be a newbie because over the years I don't remember ever posting to a forum. 
Looking over some of the forums it sound like Roger may have retired and maybe a  son Brien is taking over... I could be wrong but I haven't been looking around the site in awhile....but happen to notice the names.


----------



## pgnewarkboy

DianeNYS said:


> Even if I called the people on the emails from both DRI and the HOA, I wouldn't know who to believe!!! They are all so convincing and sincere in their beliefs that I'm befuddled...





I try to live by the following motto that I saw hanging in a shopkeepers store years ago:

"In god we trust, all others pay cash."

As sergeant Friday so famously said on Dragnet " Please ma'm just the facts."


----------



## bruwery

*I smell a rat*

I smell a rat. Well, maybe I smell rotten seafood.  I don't what I smell, but it certainly is fishy...

Like some of the other posters here, I have no dog in this fight.

You know what?  I think I'll try to stop using animal cliches, now...

In reading this thread, lv_maui is making a lot of sense.  Show me the numbers.

The only number I've seen here is the alleged 15% increase in management fees.  That is a huge figure.  Not even college tuition increases that rapidly.  15% is huge enough that *nobody* should take it at face value.  There has to be something more behind it.

Diamond's objective, first and foremost, is too make money for Diamond.  I don't say that in order to make them sound greedy; rather, I'm just stating a fact that is true of ALL businesses.  It's the reason they're in business.

How does Diamond make money?  Ignoring the CLUB, timeshare development, and whatever else they might be into - because their other enterprises aren't germane to this topic - Diamond makes money by managing resorts.  The more resorts they manage, the more money they make.

Therefore, it's counter-intuitive for Diamond to blindly throw a 15% increase at somebody, then effectively state "if you don't like it, find somebody else".  Diamond has been around long enough to know that they aren't the only game in town, and if they throw a 15% hike at a BOD, that BOD is going to consider other options.

*If* this 15% hike is true, something else is at play here.  *If* this 15% hike is true, that means either Diamond doesn't want anything to do with this resort for some reason, or that this resort has become impossibly expensive to operate.

In either case, my first reaction, as an owner, would be to ask the board to explain to me - using real numbers - just what the #$%@ is going on.  Random 15% hikes don't make sense for either side.

If the 15% hike is NOT true, then you have somebody intentionally posting false information and acting as if it's on the "owners" behalf.  It also appears that the person making these claims may be impersonating somebody else.  I'd be really curious to know who this person really is, and just what his exact motives are.

Nor do I believe the information that was posted early in this thread that allegedly came from Diamond, either.  It was too emotional to have come from a corporate office.

Bottom line: This is an ugly situation that is not going to be resolved via an internet forum.  In all honesty, this thread may have inadvertently made the situation worse.  It started with an honest question, then the axe grinders and special interests showed up with what appears to be some rather confusing misinformation.

I think the BOD at this resort has some explaining to do.  I'm not saying they're in the wrong, but I am saying that if I was an owner, I'd need much more concrete information in order to calm the waves of doubt - because what I'm reading doesn't pass the sniff test.


----------



## goldman

*Letter from Board of Directors*

March 27, 2009


Dear Fellow Polynesian Isles Owners:

The Board feels it is necessary to respond to Diamond’s letter regarding the change in management.

First, this was not a decision that was made quickly or without significant effort and research by the Board over an extended period of time.  

The Board has made significant effort to work with Diamond for the good of the Association and felt after two years of constant effort and frustration that our Association was and is not getting the support we need.   The issues of concern include the maintenance and operation of the resort and in receiving reasonable explanations of charges made in the financial statements, including and specifically those made by Diamond.  

The reference by Diamond that a management change could cost you more than $600.00 this year and put you at risk of a special assessment has no justification or validity.  It is simply a scare tactic.  

The management fee with SPM is based on what they are able to collect and any additional income they can bring to us through increased collections, increasing rentals, creating new programs that will provide additional income to the Association which will offset and lower the fees collectable from all of us as owners.  The SPM fees are not a flat figure which is paid regardless of the effectiveness of Managements collection efforts.

Diamonds information on the collection program is missing several important facts.  First, in return for paying the maintenance fees, they have use of all the units for their club, and rental and marketing programs.  This makes us whole on maintenance fees and Diamond is free to make a profit from rentals and through its club and to reduce its marketing costs.  

Diamond also pays for all the collection costs.  In return, Diamond gets to keep all the collection costs, late fees and interest recovered from any owner they are successful in collecting from.  

If Diamond goes through foreclosure the unit, they keep the unit and can sell it and keep all the proceeds when they sell it.  We are also aware that ownership of delinquent units can be obtained through a Deed in Lieu (DIL) of foreclosure which costs only a few hundred dollars and that this option is available to our Association as it is Diamond.

The Board recognizes that Diamond has no real incentive to collect on the delinquent owners as they have use of the units for their purposes for just the cost of the maintenance fees.  As referenced above, the new management company has a significant incentive to collect maintenance fees which is one of the many reasons the new agreement was entered into.

It is the Boards belief that it is in the best interest of the Association to handle the collection and foreclosure process with the Association being able to rent delinquent units and sell all the units our Association obtains title to.  In response to requests from Polynesian owners, it is the Board’s decision that Association owned units be offered to existing owners at very economical amounts which are well below what Diamond offers them for. 

One very significant issue related to Diamonds comments on paying for the delinquent owners is that the 2007 audit showed that the Association was due $574,429 from the Developer and by December 31, 2008 this figure grew to $691,474.29.
                      .
The funds we have received from Diamond have only been received after repeated demands and threats.

In spite of what Diamond leads their letter with; the change in management is not a cause for having increased maintenance fees or a special assessment. Not receiving funds in a timely manner from owners including Diamond, which has not paid late fees or interest, well could be. 

There is little question that there have been delays with the renovation projects and making improvements to the resort.  The Board has been adamant on ensuring the quality and cost of supplies and materials is correct and appropriate.  The Board has repeatedly refused to accept materials and contractors recommended by Diamond.  This was most often the case when bulk purchases were recommended through Diamond suppliers in Las Vegas when the same items could be purchased for less locally and/or the quality did not match that of the items being replaced. We recognize that this has delayed planned projects but the Board has refused to be pushed or bullied into making bad decisions. 

We also find it unprofessional for Diamond to blame their problems on their former manager who was under their direct supervision up to the point she resigned.  

We recognize that the transition of management at our sister resort, Polynesian IV has not been as smooth as they nor the new management company would like but this is more due to Diamond’s refusal to turn over records and information in a timely manner and refusal to operate in a manner that would benefit both our Association and Polynesian IV.   In spite of the current issues, Polynesian IV’s Board strongly believes they have made the right decision in changing management and so do we.

Please return your proxy to us as quickly as possible via fax to 407-849-1119 and appoint Carlos Costa, President of the Association.


Sincerely


Your owner controlled Board of Directors


----------



## youmehs

*Hello Poly Friends......*

I just got this in my email. Yes like you I have been busy making them earn their salaries. I also called my sister and niece as they both have timeshares that are managed by SPM. The management fee is based on "What they are able to collect". I don't know about you but that is not making me think that our Resort is going to be run as it always has.
What if they cannot collect? SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TIME....Maybe that's the $600.00 Diamond refers to?
Why should you vote against terminating your management agreement with Diamond Resorts Management, Inc.?  Here are a few very important reasons:

•	Your Board of Directors has not provided you with the information you need to make an informed decision.
•	You have not been told what the new management company will charge you in management fees in 2009.
•	You have not been told how much the management fees will increase over the next several years.
•	You have not been told how you will pay for your delinquency in the future without Diamond’s assistance.
•	You have not been told how much collections and foreclosures will cost you in the future without Diamond’s assistance.
•	You have not seen a copy of the new management agreement.
•	Your Board of Directors has not provided you with an analysis detailing cost savings and/or increases.  We do not believe they have even performed this vital analysis.
•	Diamond can tell you what it will charge for management fees – The same amount we have charged you for the past 7 years!
•	Diamond can tell you how much we will increase management fees for the next 3 years – We will not increase our management fee for the next 3 years!
•	Diamond can tell you how you will pay for your delinquency in the future – Diamond will pay your delinquency, it will cost you nothing!
•	Diamond can tell you how much collections and foreclosures will cost you in the future – Diamond will pay all of these costs, it will cost you nothing!

Your Board is not making a decision in your best interest.  Member’s of your Board have been involved with secret meetings, trying to make decisions outside of legal board meetings and have been to court on this matter.  The Judge ruled that this was inappropriate behavior on the part of these Board members, this is a very serious matter.  You must stop your Board from taking action that is not in your best interest.

If your Board is allowed to continue down this path, your maintenance fees will increase and the financial health of your Association will suffer.  Vote “NO” on the termination of your current management agreement.  Vote “NO” and stop your Board from taking action that could cause you financial harm.  Vote “NO” and stop your Board from making a hasty decision without performing their due diligence to ensure that they are protecting your interests.  Vote “NO” and make your Board provide you with more information.

If you have already voted, you may complete the attached proxy and replace your previous proxy.  The law is clear that the last proxy received is the one that is counted, it is not too late to change your vote.  If Diamond continues managing your property for the next three years, you know that your management fees will not increase.  You know that you will not have to pay bad debt.  You know that you will not have to pay collection and foreclosure fees.  If you allow your Board to hire this new management company, you will not know anything about what the future holds for your vacation investment.

If you have questions, require additional information, or would like to speak with someone at Diamond, please contact Marilyn Windsor at 702.823.7340 or at Marilyn.Windsor@diamondresorts.com, or Leanne Morrill at 702.823.7309 or at Leanne.Morrill@diamondresorts.com.



It makes sense to hold diamond to the fire, then throw water on them!!!

Here is what I got from them; THINK FELLOW OWNERS....we might be able to work this to our benefit!


----------



## DianeNYS

*I *am* a fellow Owner...*

and I really don't know how "to hold diamond to the fire, then throw water on them!!!"  I've already filled out and sent my proxy for the HOA at Poly to use to bump Diamond out, after reading the first several comments in this thread that I felt led me (on my own, after reading) to trust the HOA to do what is best for the Owners. 

Now, after 4 pages of back and forth on this, and dueling emails and snail mail from DRI and the HOA, I'm just as confused as I was when I first started this thread, and worse: Now I fear for my Polynesian Isles investment and future vacations there. All this acrimony between DRI and the HOA feels scary, and I really am wondering what the future will hold. I'm unhappy with my ownership there, and worried for the resort as a whole...


----------



## bruwery

*This is the strangest thread I've ever seen*

Clearly, some folks are bitter about something, but what they stand to gain by their ranting is not clear to me.

This whole thread feels like some big April Fool's joke.  I don't mean to sound like I'm putting it off as a laughing matter, but nothing I've read here really adds up.


----------



## lv_maui

bruwery said:


> Clearly, some folks are bitter about something, but what they stand to gain by their ranting is not clear to me.
> 
> This whole thread feels like some big April Fool's joke.  I don't mean to sound like I'm putting it off as a laughing matter, but nothing I've read here really adds up.



After reading your reply, I laughed as I have no idea why I spent so much time on this thread since I am not a Poly owner.


----------



## tatvan

*PI Proxies and*



lv_maui said:


> After reading your reply, I laughed as I have no idea why I spent so much time on this thread since I am not a Poly owner.



Hi,
You've spent so much time on this because sharing your knowledge and giving owners like me your opinion is valuable and appreciated.
Sometimes when your in the mist of mess you need someone else to help you to think thru matters. 

As owners we care because we have an investment in PI.

I just got off the phone with Carlos Costa the President of The Board. 
His business is in the financial industry and this is a very busy time for him.I had called him over the weekend when I received the proxy from DRI. Carlos just returned home from traveling for his work.
 He has told me that 'goldman' is the VP of the board.
Carlos is going to get in the forum as soon as he can figure out 'how to'. He was trying with me  but could only see what was being said. He wanted to post but waas having a hard time registering. I agreed with him when I registered for the BBS I had a hard time..anyway...
He had some tech person send out an email blast for the board regarding the proxy voting matter and the tech person put Carlos's personal email address on the blast so now he is getting hundreds of emails each day from owners. He said because he does not know 'how to' use email well he has had to try to answer each one by one. 
Seeing this forum adds to what he needs to do. 
He gave me lots of information but its to much. I told him he really needs to get on the forum and inform people of whats been happening and how the Board is really working on the owners behalf. 
After speaking with Carlos , I'm glad I voted to have the Board cast my (our) vote.
I'm hoping he can find time soon to answer everyone questions and erase some doubt about the Board and the work they are doing.

Thelma


----------



## tatvan

*Our Investment*



bruwery said:


> Clearly, some folks are bitter about something, but what they stand to gain by their ranting is not clear to me.
> 
> This whole thread feels like some big April Fool's joke.  I don't mean to sound like I'm putting it off as a laughing matter, but nothing I've read here really adds up.



I'm not ranting and I'm not bitter. And this is not about an April Fool's joke.
As owners we have a financial investment with the Resort. 
In these days and times I have to look how my finances and investments are being managed. 
I think only a fool would ignore the matter. So no, its not a laughing matter.

Thelma


----------



## tatvan

*I spoke with The Board Pres*



DianeNYS said:


> and I really don't know how "to hold diamond to the fire, then throw water on them!!!"  I've already filled out and sent my proxy for the HOA at Poly to use to bump Diamond out, after reading the first several comments in this thread that I felt led me (on my own, after reading) to trust the HOA to do what is best for the Owners.
> 
> Now, after 4 pages of back and forth on this, and dueling emails and snail mail from DRI and the HOA, I'm just as confused as I was when I first started this thread, and worse: Now I fear for my Polynesian Isles investment and future vacations there. All this acrimony between DRI and the HOA feels scary, and I really am wondering what the future will hold. I'm unhappy with my ownership there, and worried for the resort as a whole...



Hi,
I'm an owner as well. The board president, Carlos Costa, lives in MA as I do. Don't know him never actually met him.
I just wrote something about my talk with Carlos in reponse to someone else writing soemthing in this thread.
I had called him over the weekend when I received the yellow proxy from DRI. He's been traveling and so he just called me back this evening.
I think we did the right thing casting our vote to have him vote on our behalf to rid our resort of DRI.

Thelma


----------



## DianeNYS

*Thank you, Thelma*

For replying to my concern, and also for talking to Carlos Costa and learning more about this issue. I did just receive a private message (through TUG) from Goldman (who is, indeed, the VP of the Board/HOA). He was very sincere in his desire to help the Owners get untangled from DRI and produce a better situation at Polynesian Isles, and wanted to assure me that they will do a good job at the meeting on April 7th. He did say something about me hearing the meeting; is it a conference call or something? If it is, I'd dial in and listen...I really WANT to be happy as an Owner again (like I was before all of this brouhaha), and hear for myself the issues as they relate to dollars and cents, and the wellbeing of the Resort. Godspeed to the Board, and I'm hoping and praying for a good result...


----------



## tomgou

*Info received from DRI*

The information you have received is correct.  The Poly IV Board did terminate the management contract with Diamond.  This termination occurred at a board meeting on 2/13/09 and SPM was to assume full management responsibilities of the Poly IV Association on 3/16/09.  Diamond feels very strongly that the three (3) Poly IV Board members did not make a decision that was in the best interest of the owners and in fact believes that this decision will cause the owners of Poly IV a severe financial hardship.

Many owners are not aware of the financial benefits received through management by Diamond.  Poly IV is an older resort, and has a long term delinquency issue.  The delinquency at this resort is more than 30%.  In the past, the Board refused to budget adequately for the Association delinquency and budgeted virtually no funds for collections/foreclosures.  As you are aware, it is vitally important to the health of an Association to keep delinquencies at a minimum and to foreclose on delinquent accounts in a timely manner.  Due to many years of collection neglect, due to inaction by the Board, this Association has ended up with many clouded title issues.  These clouded title issues make it even more expensive to process foreclosures.

In 2007 Diamond stepped in to help the owners of Poly IV.  We were concerned that the owners were suffering due to the lack of action by the three Board members.  Diamond implemented its “bad debt contribution program”.  Under this program, Diamond actually pays the Association’s bad debt each year, leaving the Association 100% collected.  Diamond also pays all fees and costs associated with collections and foreclosures.  In essence this means that the owners no longer pay these amounts.  The bad debt at Poly IV is in excess of $600,000 each year. 

When the Board terminated the management contract, the bad debt contribution program was also terminated.  This is very unfortunate for the owners of Poly IV.  The 2009 budget did not include bad debt as the assumption was that Diamond would be paying it.  This is going to cause a substantial deficit in the 2009 budget and issues with the budgets going forward.  Also at the time of the termination, Diamond was in the process of foreclosing on more than 450 delinquent accounts at no cost to the owners.  A foreclosure costs a minimum of $1,000 per week, so Diamond was willing to pay more than $450,000 in legal fees that the owners will not be able to pay.  The 2009 budget does not include funds to continue these foreclosures.  When you combine these two amounts you are looking at well over $1 million dollars that the owners will now be required to pay.

Diamond asked the Poly IV board to communicate with the owners prior to making a decision of this magnitude, but they refused.  Instead, they made a rash decision that will affect thousands of owners.  We think this is wrong.

The Poly IV Board hired SPM, Resorts Inc. as the new management company.  We have seen the contract that the board signed.  It is a 5 year contract and allows SPM to charge management fees from 6.5% to 10% of all money deposited into the Association accounts.  An agreement like this is unheard of as it does not allow the Association to budget an actual amount for management fees, you will never know what your management fees will be until the end of each fiscal year.  It also allows SPM to collect management fees on pre-paid maintenance fees, we think this is wrong.  The contract also clearly states that SPM is not responsible for collections, but that the Board will be required to retain the services of a law firm to perform these functions.  Again, this is a service currently offered for free by Diamond.  The Board also retained a law firm and the cost to the owners to foreclose on a week will be in excess of $2,000.  How will the owners be able to afford this?  We don’t know, but we are very concerned.  Diamond is an owner at Poly IV, just like you.  Diamond’s affiliate developer affiliate, MMG Development, Corp., owns about 17% of the inventory at Poly IV, so for every dollar the board spends, it is costing Diamond 17 cents.  Diamond is as concerned as all of the other owners about the financial health of this Association and the very real potential for a special assessment(s).

SPM was to take over the management of Poly IV on 3/16/09; however, they were totally unprepared.  They did not set up bank accounts until that day, they did not order a merchant account (to process credit cards), they did not order a T-1 line (computer line for data), they did not have staff for maintenance or to clean the rooms.  In fact, they were so unprepared that Diamond continued to provide these services to ensure the guests at Poly IV were well cared for. To this day, SPM is still unable to check-in guests without direct assistance from Diamond.  They are still unable to make a key for a guest.  They are still unable to legally process a credit card payment and continue to write down credit card information and are not even securing the information; thereby, exposing all Poly IV guests to identity theft.  SPM has yet to provide proof of property insurance coverage, so we are left to assume that the Poly IV property is without coverage.  The above is not only bad business practice and unprofessional, but also puts the owner’s assets at risk.  We think this is wrong.

Diamond is the management company for the Master Association at Poly.  The Master Association governs all of the common areas of the resort including the check-in building.  Diamond offered, on multiple occasions, to continue the check-in services for the Poly IV guests; however, SPM and the Board rejected this offer.  This makes no sense to Diamond and is surely not in the best interest of the Poly IV owners.  Rather than allow the Poly IV owners to continue checking in where they always have, SPM and the Board felt it would be best to use a Poly IV unit for this purpose.  SPM and the Board have actually taken two units out if service to use as check-in facilities and offices.  We think this is wrong.  These units do not belong to SPM or the Board, they belong to owners.  This means that there are now two less units available for owners.  The resort is in peak-time and now you are two units short.  How is this in the best interest of the Poly IV owners?

To this date, the Board has not communicated vital information to the owners of Poly IV.  They have not shared the details of the new management contract, they have not told the owners how much the new management fees are going to cost, they have not told the owners how they plan to deal with the delinquencies without assistance from Diamond, they have not told the owners anything. 

Diamond charged a flat management fee that could be budgeted.  Diamond had not increased its management fee in 7 years and in fact agreed to not increase the fee for another 3 ½ years.  The Board rejected this.  During these tough financial times, it is imperative that you have a management company that can assist you financially.  SPM is not this company.

The Poly I Board is attempting to terminate the management contract as well and is conducting a vote of the owners; however, they too failed to provide the vital information that owners need to make an informed decisions.  Diamond has been communicating with these owners even though the Poly I Board is trying to prevent Diamond from sharing this information.

We encourage all owners to contact the Board members and share their displeasure and concern over the decisions they are making.  These Board members have a legal fiduciary responsibility to the owners and are required to act in the best interest of the owners.  These Board members are clearly not upholding their duty.

If you would like more information or if you would like to speak directly to someone at Diamond, please do not hesitate to contact Linda Riddle via telephone at 702-823-7330 or email at Linda.Riddle@DiamondResorts.com

Sincerely,

Shawn Ericson

Senior Vice President, Resort Operations


----------



## lv_maui

tomgou said:


> The information you have received is correct.....
> 
> If you would like more information or if you would like to speak directly to someone at Diamond, please do not hesitate to contact Linda Riddle via telephone at 702-823-7330 or email at Linda.Riddle@DiamondResorts.com
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Shawn Ericson
> 
> Senior Vice President, Resort Operations



All I can say is that DRI made some very specific allegations.  If they are false, I would assume DRI would have negative feedback against them.  On the other hand, this is specific and has some qualitative attributes that have been lacking.


----------



## tatvan

td032309 said:


> Dear Fellow Owners:
> 
> This letter is to update you on the current status of the management situation at Polynesian Isles IV.  As members of the Board of Directors, who are elected by you, the owners, we feel it is extremely important that you stay informed and updated on the situation at the Resort.
> 
> This Board feels that our primary focus should be to see the Resort maintained at the highest possible level, while expenditures are kept at the lowest possible level.  One of the most important elements of the Resort is its management company.  We want a management company that is going to put the owners first, work together with the Board and the owners in a friendly and supportive manner, place a real emphasis on Polynesian Isles IV, and be accountable to the Board and to the owners for its actions.  The Board and many of the owners were not satisfied with the situation at our Resort.  The main problem was what we believed the management contract to be one-sided and not in the best interest of the owners.  We also had a sense that Polynesian Isles IV was just not important and that the owners did not matter.
> 
> Because of this situation, the Board of Directors made a decision to terminate the management agreement with Diamond Resorts International in accordance with the termination provisions of the contract.  Following interviews with other management company candidates, your Board unanimously decided to sign a management contract with SPM Resorts, Inc. to take over the management of Polynesian Isles IV on March 16, 2009.  SPM Resorts, Inc., with its main office located in Myrtle Beach, SC, manages 28 different associations totaling over 87,000 owners.  In the termination notice to Diamond Resorts International, the Board asked that they cooperate with SPM Resorts prior to March 16, 2009.  It was our hope to have a smooth and orderly transition from one management company to the other, so as to avoid any unnecessary problems or expenses for the owners.
> 
> Unfortunately, Diamond Resorts International and MMG Development, Inc. have chosen to not allow SPM Resorts use of the front desk or maintenance facility, even though Polynesian IV contributes to 60% of the cost for the maintenance of these buildings.  However, please be assured that we have arranged for one of the units within Polynesian IV to be used for the front desk and maintenance is located off site until these issues are resolved. This Board will not allow Diamond to impose its will over what is best for this association and what is best for you, the owners.
> 
> If you are calling Diamond Resorts International, MMG, or the Resort regarding maintenance fees or reservations, please call (843) 238-5000 temporarily and your call will be directed to the person responsible for handling your situation.
> 
> We look forward to a long and mutually beneficial relationship with the new management company, SPM Resorts.  The Board is excited by some of the ideas SPM Resorts has, and we hope that this management change will provide the owners with better service and make Polynesian Isles IV a better Resort.  We want to thank you for your continued support of your elected Board of Directors, and we promise to continue to do the best job we can for you and for the Resort.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> 
> Terry Byrd
> Phyllis Skora
> Rick Johnson



To All BOD,
 I just read the post of what Shawn Ericson, Sr. VP wrote yesterday evening. 
If what he has stated is correct, then, I'm gald to have read his detailed account of what SPM and your Board have done. 
Now I want my Board at PI-1  not make your same costly mistakes. 

Thelma


----------



## tatvan

*Shawn Ericson Statement Posted*



goldman said:


> March 27, 2009
> 
> 
> Dear Fellow Polynesian Isles Owners:
> 
> The Board feels it is necessary to respond to Diamond’s letter regarding the change in management.
> 
> First, this was not a decision that was made quickly or without significant effort and research by the Board over an extended period of time.
> 
> The Board has made significant effort to work with Diamond for the good of the Association and felt after two years of constant effort and frustration that our Association was and is not getting the support we need.   The issues of concern include the maintenance and operation of the resort and in receiving reasonable explanations of charges made in the financial statements, including and specifically those made by Diamond.
> 
> The reference by Diamond that a management change could cost you more than $600.00 this year and put you at risk of a special assessment has no justification or validity.  It is simply a scare tactic.
> 
> The management fee with SPM is based on what they are able to collect and any additional income they can bring to us through increased collections, increasing rentals, creating new programs that will provide additional income to the Association which will offset and lower the fees collectable from all of us as owners.  The SPM fees are not a flat figure which is paid regardless of the effectiveness of Managements collection efforts.
> 
> Diamonds information on the collection program is missing several important facts.  First, in return for paying the maintenance fees, they have use of all the units for their club, and rental and marketing programs.  This makes us whole on maintenance fees and Diamond is free to make a profit from rentals and through its club and to reduce its marketing costs.
> 
> Diamond also pays for all the collection costs.  In return, Diamond gets to keep all the collection costs, late fees and interest recovered from any owner they are successful in collecting from.
> 
> If Diamond goes through foreclosure the unit, they keep the unit and can sell it and keep all the proceeds when they sell it.  We are also aware that ownership of delinquent units can be obtained through a Deed in Lieu (DIL) of foreclosure which costs only a few hundred dollars and that this option is available to our Association as it is Diamond.
> 
> The Board recognizes that Diamond has no real incentive to collect on the delinquent owners as they have use of the units for their purposes for just the cost of the maintenance fees.  As referenced above, the new management company has a significant incentive to collect maintenance fees which is one of the many reasons the new agreement was entered into.
> 
> It is the Boards belief that it is in the best interest of the Association to handle the collection and foreclosure process with the Association being able to rent delinquent units and sell all the units our Association obtains title to.  In response to requests from Polynesian owners, it is the Board’s decision that Association owned units be offered to existing owners at very economical amounts which are well below what Diamond offers them for.
> 
> One very significant issue related to Diamonds comments on paying for the delinquent owners is that the 2007 audit showed that the Association was due $574,429 from the Developer and by December 31, 2008 this figure grew to $691,474.29.
> .
> The funds we have received from Diamond have only been received after repeated demands and threats.
> 
> In spite of what Diamond leads their letter with; the change in management is not a cause for having increased maintenance fees or a special assessment. Not receiving funds in a timely manner from owners including Diamond, which has not paid late fees or interest, well could be.
> 
> There is little question that there have been delays with the renovation projects and making improvements to the resort.  The Board has been adamant on ensuring the quality and cost of supplies and materials is correct and appropriate.  The Board has repeatedly refused to accept materials and contractors recommended by Diamond.  This was most often the case when bulk purchases were recommended through Diamond suppliers in Las Vegas when the same items could be purchased for less locally and/or the quality did not match that of the items being replaced. We recognize that this has delayed planned projects but the Board has refused to be pushed or bullied into making bad decisions.
> 
> We also find it unprofessional for Diamond to blame their problems on their former manager who was under their direct supervision up to the point she resigned.
> 
> We recognize that the transition of management at our sister resort, Polynesian IV has not been as smooth as they nor the new management company would like but this is more due to Diamond’s refusal to turn over records and information in a timely manner and refusal to operate in a manner that would benefit both our Association and Polynesian IV.   In spite of the current issues, Polynesian IV’s Board strongly believes they have made the right decision in changing management and so do we.
> 
> Please return your proxy to us as quickly as possible via fax to 407-849-1119 and appoint Carlos Costa, President of the Association.
> 
> 
> Sincerely
> 
> 
> Your owner controlled Board of Directors



Hi,

I just read Shawn Ericson statement. So now after reading the details of what has been happening at PI-IV I don't want those costly mistakes to take place at PI-1. 
Maybe you need to consider anyother management company if not DRI because SPM does not seem like their business practice will work in the long run without owners having to pay for a costly mistake made by this BOD. 
If what Shawn has written in detail is incorrect I would hope someone on the Board at PI-1 would tell us different. 
The vote is next week so time is of the essence. 

Thelma


----------



## tatvan

*Poly 1 Owner*



tomgou said:


> The information you have received is correct.  The Poly IV Board did terminate the management contract with Diamond.  This termination occurred at a board meeting on 2/13/09 and SPM was to assume full management responsibilities of the Poly IV Association on 3/16/09.  Diamond feels very strongly that the three (3) Poly IV Board members did not make a decision that was in the best interest of the owners and in fact believes that this decision will cause the owners of Poly IV a severe financial hardship.
> 
> Many owners are not aware of the financial benefits received through management by Diamond.  Poly IV is an older resort, and has a long term delinquency issue.  The delinquency at this resort is more than 30%.  In the past, the Board refused to budget adequately for the Association delinquency and budgeted virtually no funds for collections/foreclosures.  As you are aware, it is vitally important to the health of an Association to keep delinquencies at a minimum and to foreclose on delinquent accounts in a timely manner.  Due to many years of collection neglect, due to inaction by the Board, this Association has ended up with many clouded title issues.  These clouded title issues make it even more expensive to process foreclosures.
> 
> In 2007 Diamond stepped in to help the owners of Poly IV.  We were concerned that the owners were suffering due to the lack of action by the three Board members.  Diamond implemented its “bad debt contribution program”.  Under this program, Diamond actually pays the Association’s bad debt each year, leaving the Association 100% collected.  Diamond also pays all fees and costs associated with collections and foreclosures.  In essence this means that the owners no longer pay these amounts.  The bad debt at Poly IV is in excess of $600,000 each year.
> 
> When the Board terminated the management contract, the bad debt contribution program was also terminated.  This is very unfortunate for the owners of Poly IV.  The 2009 budget did not include bad debt as the assumption was that Diamond would be paying it.  This is going to cause a substantial deficit in the 2009 budget and issues with the budgets going forward.  Also at the time of the termination, Diamond was in the process of foreclosing on more than 450 delinquent accounts at no cost to the owners.  A foreclosure costs a minimum of $1,000 per week, so Diamond was willing to pay more than $450,000 in legal fees that the owners will not be able to pay.  The 2009 budget does not include funds to continue these foreclosures.  When you combine these two amounts you are looking at well over $1 million dollars that the owners will now be required to pay.
> 
> Diamond asked the Poly IV board to communicate with the owners prior to making a decision of this magnitude, but they refused.  Instead, they made a rash decision that will affect thousands of owners.  We think this is wrong.
> 
> The Poly IV Board hired SPM, Resorts Inc. as the new management company.  We have seen the contract that the board signed.  It is a 5 year contract and allows SPM to charge management fees from 6.5% to 10% of all money deposited into the Association accounts.  An agreement like this is unheard of as it does not allow the Association to budget an actual amount for management fees, you will never know what your management fees will be until the end of each fiscal year.  It also allows SPM to collect management fees on pre-paid maintenance fees, we think this is wrong.  The contract also clearly states that SPM is not responsible for collections, but that the Board will be required to retain the services of a law firm to perform these functions.  Again, this is a service currently offered for free by Diamond.  The Board also retained a law firm and the cost to the owners to foreclose on a week will be in excess of $2,000.  How will the owners be able to afford this?  We don’t know, but we are very concerned.  Diamond is an owner at Poly IV, just like you.  Diamond’s affiliate developer affiliate, MMG Development, Corp., owns about 17% of the inventory at Poly IV, so for every dollar the board spends, it is costing Diamond 17 cents.  Diamond is as concerned as all of the other owners about the financial health of this Association and the very real potential for a special assessment(s).
> 
> SPM was to take over the management of Poly IV on 3/16/09; however, they were totally unprepared.  They did not set up bank accounts until that day, they did not order a merchant account (to process credit cards), they did not order a T-1 line (computer line for data), they did not have staff for maintenance or to clean the rooms.  In fact, they were so unprepared that Diamond continued to provide these services to ensure the guests at Poly IV were well cared for. To this day, SPM is still unable to check-in guests without direct assistance from Diamond.  They are still unable to make a key for a guest.  They are still unable to legally process a credit card payment and continue to write down credit card information and are not even securing the information; thereby, exposing all Poly IV guests to identity theft.  SPM has yet to provide proof of property insurance coverage, so we are left to assume that the Poly IV property is without coverage.  The above is not only bad business practice and unprofessional, but also puts the owner’s assets at risk.  We think this is wrong.
> 
> Diamond is the management company for the Master Association at Poly.  The Master Association governs all of the common areas of the resort including the check-in building.  Diamond offered, on multiple occasions, to continue the check-in services for the Poly IV guests; however, SPM and the Board rejected this offer.  This makes no sense to Diamond and is surely not in the best interest of the Poly IV owners.  Rather than allow the Poly IV owners to continue checking in where they always have, SPM and the Board felt it would be best to use a Poly IV unit for this purpose.  SPM and the Board have actually taken two units out if service to use as check-in facilities and offices.  We think this is wrong.  These units do not belong to SPM or the Board, they belong to owners.  This means that there are now two less units available for owners.  The resort is in peak-time and now you are two units short.  How is this in the best interest of the Poly IV owners?
> 
> To this date, the Board has not communicated vital information to the owners of Poly IV.  They have not shared the details of the new management contract, they have not told the owners how much the new management fees are going to cost, they have not told the owners how they plan to deal with the delinquencies without assistance from Diamond, they have not told the owners anything.
> 
> Diamond charged a flat management fee that could be budgeted.  Diamond had not increased its management fee in 7 years and in fact agreed to not increase the fee for another 3 ½ years.  The Board rejected this.  During these tough financial times, it is imperative that you have a management company that can assist you financially.  SPM is not this company.
> 
> The Poly I Board is attempting to terminate the management contract as well and is conducting a vote of the owners; however, they too failed to provide the vital information that owners need to make an informed decisions.  Diamond has been communicating with these owners even though the Poly I Board is trying to prevent Diamond from sharing this information.
> 
> We encourage all owners to contact the Board members and share their displeasure and concern over the decisions they are making.  These Board members have a legal fiduciary responsibility to the owners and are required to act in the best interest of the owners.  These Board members are clearly not upholding their duty.
> 
> If you would like more information or if you would like to speak directly to someone at Diamond, please do not hesitate to contact Linda Riddle via telephone at 702-823-7330 or email at Linda.Riddle@DiamondResorts.com
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Shawn Ericson
> 
> Senior Vice President, Resort Operations



Shawn,
 I'm a Poly 1 owner and I really hope someone on the Board at Poly 1 will prove you wrong.
I've spoken with Carlos directly. Boy .... what you and him say are completely different.
I would think there ought to be a way to video conference the meeting on Tuesday so owners could take part in the discussion. I would think its an important enough meeting for those arragement to be made.

Thelma


----------



## lv_maui

I cannot believe that I am going to spend more time on this, but after reading this letter from the BOD, I am worried about their mindset.  Maybe it is just me, but I certainly question their business judgement as this letter gives a good example.

*The issues of concern include the maintenance and operation of the resort and in receiving reasonable explanations of charges made in the financial statements, including and specifically those made by Diamond.  * Financials are financials.  Does anyone have any business experience.  I find it hard to believe as I have never seen this in an HOA.  Also, I repeat that you concern about the operation of the resort is based on the fact that you were in love wiht the former resort manager, Dottie Arnold.

*The reference by Diamond that a management change could cost you more than $600.00 this year and put you at risk of a special assessment has no justification or validity.  It is simply a scare tactic.  * It is a scare tactic, but based on what they are saying, it would be real.


*Diamonds information on the collection program is missing several important facts.  First, in return for paying the maintenance fees, they have use of all the units for their club, and rental and marketing programs. * MY GOSH.  WHAT WOULD YOU THINK THEY SHOULD GET IN RETURN.  It makes the all the sense in the world that if they pay the fee, they get use of the week.  I am floored that you think this is not reasonable.

*This makes us whole on maintenance fees and Diamond is free to make a profit from rentals and through its club and to reduce its marketing costs.  * Again, why shouldn't they have this right.

*Diamond also pays for all the collection costs.  In return, Diamond gets to keep all the collection costs, late fees and interest recovered from any owner they are successful in collecting from.  * That is pretty standard in the collection industry.

*If Diamond goes through foreclosure the unit, they keep the unit and can sell it and keep all the proceeds when they sell it.  We are also aware that ownership of delinquent units can be obtained through a Deed in Lieu (DIL) of foreclosure which costs only a few hundred dollars and that this option is available to our Association as it is Diamond*.  HERE WE GO AGAIN.  YOu have to be kidding me that this is not a good option.  First, many timeshare owners cannot be located.  So, foreclosure is the only option.  Second, my experience is that DRI would have to entice an owner to give a DIL wiht some money.  It is very common to pay someone $200 for their "cooperation".  Recovering intervals is a very very difficult process that is not easily done.

*The Board recognizes that Diamond has no real incentive to collect on the delinquent owners as they have use of the units for their purposes for just the cost of the maintenance fees.  * And the owners do not have to worry about this deliquency.  This is a good deal for the HOA

*It is the Boards belief that it is in the best interest of the Association to handle the collection and foreclosure process with the Association being able to rent delinquent units and sell all the units our Association obtains title to.  In response to requests from Polynesian owners, it is the Board’s decision that Association owned units be offered to existing owners at very economical amounts which are well below what Diamond offers them for. *

*One very significant issue related to Diamonds comments on paying for the delinquent owners is that the 2007 audit showed that the Association was due $574,429 from the Developer and by December 31, 2008 this figure grew to $691,474.29.*  That would trouble me too.  But at least DRI did the right thing in the end.


----------



## Chanook729

*Latest Diamond Letter*

The saga continues...  It sound like Diamond might be getting desperate.  Won by 11 votes, but how many votes in total?  TGIF:whoopie:    



Dear Polynesian I Resort Owner,

You still have time to join your fellow owners to stop your Board from terminating your management contract at Polynesian Isles. Many owners who voted to terminate have considered the facts and have changed their minds and their vote. You can, too.

We believe owners at Poly I are very upset with the Board. They know that the Board has failed to provide vital information to the owners. They are angry because their elected Board members have not provided their phone numbers so owners can ask questions and receive more information. The majority of the owners also realize that the change in management companies will raise maintenance fees, but they cannot speak to a Board member to ask why the Board finds this acceptable.

Don’t let your Board make this decision for you. Do you know that your Board President was barely re-elected this year? Mr. Costa won the election by 11 votes, and nine of those votes were cast by another board member. This means that a large percentage of the owners did not approve of Mr. Costa’s performance as Board President. Why would you leave this decision in the hands of Mr. Costa and his buddies on the Board?

This is probably the most important issue you will vote on as a Poly I owner. It is not too late to vote against terminating your current management agreement. Simply complete the attached proxy, date it and return it via the instructions listed below. Please make sure your voice is heard. Please return the attached proxy today. See instructions below for returning your proxy. Your proxy must be received prior to the meeting on April 7, 2009.

Please carefully review the attached proxy immediately. We are asking you to appoint Linda Riddle to vote your proxy. Your signed, dated proxy must be received prior to the meeting on April 7, 2009. If you do not want to wait to receive your materials in the mail, you may return this proxy 1) by email of a scanned or pdf copy of this proxy to polyproxy@smartinfo.us; or 2) by facsimile to (610) 683-5616. Or you can complete this proxy online at: https://smartinfo.us/polyproxy. In order to return your proxy online, you will need to enter the following information:

If you have any questions, or would like to speak with someone at Diamond about this situation or this solicitation, please feel free to contact Marilyn Windsor at 702.823.7340 or at Marilyn.Windsor@diamondresorts.com, or Leanne Morrill at 702.823.7309 or at Leanne.Morrill@diamondresorts.com.

Thank you,

Diamond Resorts Management, Inc.


----------



## tatvan

*call in info PI-1*



DianeNYS said:


> For replying to my concern, and also for talking to Carlos Costa and learning more about this issue. I did just receive a private message (through TUG) from Goldman (who is, indeed, the VP of the Board/HOA). He was very sincere in his desire to help the Owners get untangled from DRI and produce a better situation at Polynesian Isles, and wanted to assure me that they will do a good job at the meeting on April 7th. He did say something about me hearing the meeting; is it a conference call or something? If it is, I'd dial in and listen...I really WANT to be happy as an Owner again (like I was before all of this brouhaha), and hear for myself the issues as they relate to dollars and cents, and the wellbeing of the Resort. Godspeed to the Board, and I'm hoping and praying for a good result...



I read the post today from another Diamond person. I did not know Carlos barely was re-elected. Did Eddie (Goldman) give you the call in number? I'm not on their email list so if a number was sent I would not have received it. I don't want to call Carlos again, I know he's busy. Carlos gave me the email address from an email blast sent but I can not find what I did with it. Yea, so if you have any number or address please forward to me. I think its important to take part in the meeting Tuesday if at all possible.

Thelma


----------



## tatvan

*So today you come out the closet to say your with DRI*



Chanook729 said:


> Sue,
> 
> What phase are you in?  I got my proxy about a week ago. I am glad to see discussion on the subject here, as I was out of the loop on events at PI. Does anyone know of a HOA group for Poly?  If not that might be an idea to float past the board so that information can be shared with the owners.



From reading what you write on March 23, I would have not known you are actually with Diamond Resorts. You did not have a signature on this post. On your later posting to this thread you simpy sign as John. Now today your signature is Diamond Resorts... today its like your coming out the closet!! 
On the Board of Diamond Resorts or an employee but you have a relationship with them. 
And that's not the problem .... it's how you have gone about revealing the fact or not.
After you say all you had to say today ,April 4 someone would be led to believe you know everything about the HOA at PI. How can you state on March 23......."Does anyone know of a HOA group for Poly"..... or state that "I was out of the loop on events at PI" and you disclose today April 4, in your post, you are with DRI. You sound like a deceiver.

Thelma


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Better Late Than Never, Eh ?*




> So today you come out the closet to say your with DRI


This entire discussion topic would have had more clarity & would have been easier to follow if more of the participants had made clear who they are, whom they represent, & where they're coming from, etc., at the outset.  

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## lv_maui

*Chanook is not DRI*



tatvan said:


> Now today your signature is Diamond Resorts... today its like your coming out the closet!!
> On the Board of Diamond Resorts or an employee but you have a relationship with them.
> And that's not the problem .... it's how you have gone about revealing the fact or not.



I see no indication from that post that the person is implying he is with DRI.  He is just copying a letter/email that DRI sent out.  I really am not sure how you could interpret the posting that way, Thelma.  Maybe you shoudl re-read the post!!


----------



## DianeNYS

*For Thelma*

Hi, Thelma...All I got was a "private message" through my TUG BBS account, and nothing that came in my email from the VP. So, no return email, and he included no phone number...Here it is copied/pasted below:
(I sincerely hope that I am not breaching any TUG protocol by posting this publicly; I just really want to help in getting to the bottom of this crazy mess)



"Board of Director working Hard 

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

I just had the first opportunity a few minutes ago to set down and read the recent posting. Let me assurance you and the other owners the Board is did it best to protect the interest of all the home owners.
It would tak too long to discuss the problem there are with Diamond, but trust me when I tell you a chhange is necessary. 
I am delight to hear that a lots of people have put their trust in us as the board and hopeful after April 7th we can get on with the business of help to secure the resort for the owners. 
Poly 4 has already made all the necessary moves and it would be good if we can also get everything changed over. 
If at all possibly it might be good if you can listen in on the meeting from Florida on the 7th of April, everything is not as Diamond has so skillfully presented it. They are a large company with hundreds of employees, but even that doesn't assure the owner of the best possibly management.
Let's just keep work together, we have been owner ever since the orginial buildings were in construction.
We have seen bad time and good time, but we want more good times.
Eddie Lofton
Vice President"


----------



## Chanook729

*Me?  On the Darkside?*

As per Alan...

I am an owner of a week at Poly in no way affilited with Diamond or a member of the HOA Board.

I was simply posting the latest email from Diamond to keep those who do not own at Poly, but have been following as these events unfold (then fold themselves up again, change color and texture and unfold again) to follow along. I mentioned that Diamond seemed desperate with the wording of the last letter, bringing the winning by 11 votes in and I simply asked wondered how many total votes...   11 votes could be 1% or 99% of the total votes...  

-John


----------



## happytraveler1

I own at Polynesian Isles and have attended meetings there.  Let it be known that Linda Riddle is a paralegal EMPLOYED by Diamond Resorts. Thank You


----------



## lv_maui

DianeNYS said:


> I just had the first opportunity a few minutes ago to set down and read the recent posting. Let me assurance you and the other owners the Board is did it best to protect the interest of all the home owners.
> It would tak too long to discuss the problem there are with Diamond, but trust me when I tell you a chhange is necessary.
> I am delight to hear that a lots of people have put their trust in us as the board and hopeful after April 7th we can get on with the business of help to secure the resort for the owners.
> Poly 4 has already made all the necessary moves and it would be good if we can also get everything changed over.
> If at all possibly it might be good if you can listen in on the meeting from Florida on the 7th of April, everything is not as Diamond has so skillfully presented it. They are a large company with hundreds of employees, but even that doesn't assure the owner of the best possibly management.
> Let's just keep work together, we have been owner ever since the orginial buildings were in construction.
> We have seen bad time and good time, but we want more good times.
> Eddie Lofton
> Vice President"



Once again, a posting with no specifics about what is going on although I had some trouble following what Mr. Lofton was saying.


----------



## tatvan

lv_maui said:


> I see no indication from that post that the person is implying he is with DRI.  He is just copying a letter/email that DRI sent out.  I really am not sure how you could interpret the posting that way, Thelma.  Maybe you shoudl re-read the post!!



The post from John did not indicate he does not have a relationship with DRI. He posted a document with signature from DRI and does not attach or state a disclaimer stating he is not employed by them nor on their board ....therefore leaves him open to my statement.


----------



## tatvan

*In Agreement*



AwayWeGo said:


> This entire discussion topic would have had more clarity & would have been easier to follow if more of the participants had made clear who they are, whom they represent, & where they're coming from, etc., at the outset.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



I agree...amen!!


----------



## tatvan

DianeNYS said:


> Hi, Thelma...All I got was a "private message" through my TUG BBS account, and nothing that came in my email from the VP. So, no return email, and he included no phone number...Here it is copied/pasted below:
> (I sincerely hope that I am not breaching any TUG protocol by posting this publicly; I just really want to help in getting to the bottom of this crazy mess)
> 
> 
> 
> "Board of Director working Hard
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I just had the first opportunity a few minutes ago to set down and read the recent posting. Let me assurance you and the other owners the Board is did it best to protect the interest of all the home owners.
> It would tak too long to discuss the problem there are with Diamond, but trust me when I tell you a chhange is necessary.
> I am delight to hear that a lots of people have put their trust in us as the board and hopeful after April 7th we can get on with the business of help to secure the resort for the owners.
> Poly 4 has already made all the necessary moves and it would be good if we can also get everything changed over.
> If at all possibly it might be good if you can listen in on the meeting from Florida on the 7th of April, everything is not as Diamond has so skillfully presented it. They are a large company with hundreds of employees, but even that doesn't assure the owner of the best possibly management.
> Let's just keep work together, we have been owner ever since the orginial buildings were in construction.
> We have seen bad time and good time, but we want more good times.
> Eddie Lofton
> Vice President"



I agree with the person who said its hard to follow what Eddie is saying. So now today is Friday they meet on Tuesday and I have not heard either side say they are making conferencing an option for the owners to participate. Seems like both sides have something going on owners we would not appreciate. Time will tell.
Thelma


----------



## tatvan

Chanook729 said:


> As per Alan...
> 
> I am an owner of a week at Poly in no way affilited with Diamond or a member of the HOA Board.
> 
> I was simply posting the latest email from Diamond to keep those who do not own at Poly, but have been following as these events unfold (then fold themselves up again, change color and texture and unfold again) to follow along. I mentioned that Diamond seemed desperate with the wording of the last letter, bringing the winning by 11 votes in and I simply asked wondered how many total votes...   11 votes could be 1% or 99% of the total votes...
> 
> -John



Prior to what you posted, the lastest email I see on these posting is on the 23rd of March stating who he is and where he's from....Shawn Ericson, DRI Management.
What you posted has no indication it did not come from DRI ... so now your saying your not with DRI .... confusing !!!!
I only know what I'm reading and I look to see if someone signs what they wrote.... I read what was written and signed.... there was nothing to tell me otherwise.
If you don't want to be confusing you may want to write a disclaimer... just a thought....
Thelma


----------



## tatvan

*My Mistake*



tatvan said:


> Prior to what you posted, the lastest email I see on these posting is on the 23rd of March stating who he is and where he's from....Shawn Ericson, DRI Management.
> What you posted has no indication it did not come from DRI ... so now your saying your not with DRI .... confusing !!!!
> I only know what I'm reading and I look to see if someone signs what they wrote.... I read what was written and signed.... there was nothing to tell me otherwise.
> If you don't want to be confusing you may want to write a disclaimer... just a thought....
> Thelma



John, 
Prior to what you posted , the lastest post was not on March 23 but on March 31 ... my mistake.
Thelma


----------



## Chanook729

*It's all just confusing...*

No worries...  I thought that using the different font for my comments would have seperated the two.

There are two sides to this story and most likely somewhere in the middle is the truth. We will ever have it?  Who knows.


----------



## pgnewarkboy

Chanook729 said:


> No worries...  I thought that using the different font for my comments would have seperated the two.
> 
> There are two sides to this story and most likely somewhere in the middle is the truth. We will ever have it?  Who knows.




With all due respect, in a matter such as this there is only one set of facts. Owners should demand from the board a copy of the proposed new contract as well as all official correspondence from DRI to the board concerning the lawsuit and statements regarding managment fee freezes and collections.  This should all be on file with the board.


----------



## DianeNYS

*Newest email from Poly I HOA that I've received*

MEMO TO OWNERS

FROM:            CARLOS COSTA, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS 
                        POLYNESIAN ISLES RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

DATE:             April 3, 2009

TO:                  OWNERS OF POLYNESIAN ISLES RESORT CONDOMINIUM                                                         ASSOCIATION, INC.

RE:                  DIAMOND RESORTS MANAGEMENT, INC.

Dear Owners: 
We have received some inquiries as to why the Board of Directors (“BOD”) of Polynesian Isles Resort Condominium Association, Inc. (“Poly I”) wants to terminate the Diamond Resorts Management, Inc. (“DRM”).  The BOD has worked with DRM, but over the last four (4) years has not been happy with its services.  The BOD has voiced its concerns, and DRM has failed to remedy the problems

Although DRM claims assessments will rise under SPM Resorts, Inc. (“SPM”), that could not be further than the truth.  In fact, SPM will hold DRM responsible for its assessments.  The truth is that DRM does not pay its assessments on time, and as of this date, has not paid its 2008 or 2009 assessments.  This has been DRM’s pattern over the last few years. It fails to pay until the audit is complete, and then it doesn’t pay late fees or interest even though every other owner is charged these fees.

Further, the Interval Recovery Agreement, to which a recent communication to you from DRM referred, only benefits DRM, since DRM ultimately forecloses on the  week in question in which delinquent assessments are due and then resells or rents  it for more for its own financial gain.  Hence, there is not an incentive for DRM to actually collect from delinquent owners.  Poly I, however, does have such an incentive and can recover those weeks in which delinquent assessments are due by either actually collecting those delinquent assessments or selling the week in question, thus reducing bad debt and benefiting both Poly I and its Owners.

DRM wants you to believe that the fees charged by SPM will be greater than DRM’s, however, the fee paid to SPM will be a percentage of what it collects.  There are no hidden fees or additional fees like DRM charges the owners.  The BOD has spent endless hours researching new management companies, and it was not until the BOD decided to vote to terminate DRM that DRM decided not to raise its management fee.  Even with DRM’s not raising its fee, SPM will still be cheaper for the owners with a better quality of service.  We have spoken to several board members from properties managed by SPM, and they have all said the quality of service increased, while maintenance fees decreased because SPM is not a developer, but rather manages in the best interest of the owners. 
If you have any questions or concerns, and before you believe one-sided information from DRM, I urge you to contact me directly as the  President of the Board of Directors of  Poly I and give me the opportunity to clarify any potentially misleading information, which could possibly lead you to act against your own best interest as an Owner of Poly I.  Otherwise, please fax your proxy today  to 407-849-1119 and appoint me as your proxy holder.  It is time to take back our resort.  You can also contact me directly at ccosta@myway.com

Sincerely,

Carlos Costa, President
Polynesian Isles Resort Condominium Association, Inc.

*****************************************************************

This is very coherent and, though not number specific, does make some sense and calms my fears somewhat...I appreciate Carlos' communication here and sincerely hope what's best for us as Owners and Polynesian Isles as a Resort comes to pass. Beyond that, I'm not sure...I, too, would like to be able to listen in on a conference call to Tuesday's meeting. I'm still pretty confused, and wish I knew who had the highest moral ground here--DRI management or the Poly I Board of Directors/HOA.    Diane


----------



## tatvan

*Let's send Carlos an email*



DianeNYS said:


> MEMO TO OWNERS
> 
> FROM:            CARLOS COSTA, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS
> POLYNESIAN ISLES RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
> 
> DATE:             April 3, 2009
> 
> TO:                  OWNERS OF POLYNESIAN ISLES RESORT CONDOMINIUM                                                         ASSOCIATION, INC.
> 
> RE:                  DIAMOND RESORTS MANAGEMENT, INC.
> 
> Dear Owners:
> We have received some inquiries as to why the Board of Directors (“BOD”) of Polynesian Isles Resort Condominium Association, Inc. (“Poly I”) wants to terminate the Diamond Resorts Management, Inc. (“DRM”).  The BOD has worked with DRM, but over the last four (4) years has not been happy with its services.  The BOD has voiced its concerns, and DRM has failed to remedy the problems
> 
> Although DRM claims assessments will rise under SPM Resorts, Inc. (“SPM”), that could not be further than the truth.  In fact, SPM will hold DRM responsible for its assessments.  The truth is that DRM does not pay its assessments on time, and as of this date, has not paid its 2008 or 2009 assessments.  This has been DRM’s pattern over the last few years. It fails to pay until the audit is complete, and then it doesn’t pay late fees or interest even though every other owner is charged these fees.
> 
> Further, the Interval Recovery Agreement, to which a recent communication to you from DRM referred, only benefits DRM, since DRM ultimately forecloses on the  week in question in which delinquent assessments are due and then resells or rents  it for more for its own financial gain.  Hence, there is not an incentive for DRM to actually collect from delinquent owners.  Poly I, however, does have such an incentive and can recover those weeks in which delinquent assessments are due by either actually collecting those delinquent assessments or selling the week in question, thus reducing bad debt and benefiting both Poly I and its Owners.
> 
> DRM wants you to believe that the fees charged by SPM will be greater than DRM’s, however, the fee paid to SPM will be a percentage of what it collects.  There are no hidden fees or additional fees like DRM charges the owners.  The BOD has spent endless hours researching new management companies, and it was not until the BOD decided to vote to terminate DRM that DRM decided not to raise its management fee.  Even with DRM’s not raising its fee, SPM will still be cheaper for the owners with a better quality of service.  We have spoken to several board members from properties managed by SPM, and they have all said the quality of service increased, while maintenance fees decreased because SPM is not a developer, but rather manages in the best interest of the owners.
> If you have any questions or concerns, and before you believe one-sided information from DRM, I urge you to contact me directly as the  President of the Board of Directors of  Poly I and give me the opportunity to clarify any potentially misleading information, which could possibly lead you to act against your own best interest as an Owner of Poly I.  Otherwise, please fax your proxy today  to 407-849-1119 and appoint me as your proxy holder.  It is time to take back our resort.  You can also contact me directly at ccosta@myway.com
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Carlos Costa, President
> Polynesian Isles Resort Condominium Association, Inc.
> 
> *****************************************************************
> 
> This is very coherent and, though not number specific, does make some sense and calms my fears somewhat...I appreciate Carlos' communication here and sincerely hope what's best for us as Owners and Polynesian Isles as a Resort comes to pass. Beyond that, I'm not sure...I, too, would like to be able to listen in on a conference call to Tuesday's meeting. I'm still pretty confused, and wish I knew who had the highest moral ground here--DRI management or the Poly I Board of Directors/HOA.    Diane



Hi Diane,

As owners we ought to send Carlos the email asking him to make a video conference or conference call available for us on Tuesday. Lets tell him that would be a good use of our money. I will send an email to him right now. I would just call him but he is most likely in Florida setting up for the meeting.
I did not receive this email. PI does not have any email addresses for me. 
Thanks for sending your email.

Thelma


----------



## tatvan

*Meeting is on Tuesday*



pgnewarkboy said:


> With all due respect, in a matter such as this there is only one set of facts. Owners should demand from the board a copy of the proposed new contract as well as all official correspondence from DRI to the board concerning the lawsuit and statements regarding managment fee freezes and collections.  This should all be on file with the board.



But with the meeting on Tuesday I don't think we'll be given the lawsuit information and official correspondance from DRI at this late date. 
Now if they do terminate DRI then we do have time to look over important documents before a new management is in place. DRI contract ends in June. We can ask for the information you suggest before contracting with a new management company. SPM may not end up with the contract after DRI. What you suggest owners demand in regard to the new contract proposal does not seem unreasonable. We may need to consider two or three other management company before owners make the final decision.... I do think this ought to be an owners decision.
Thelma


----------



## tatvan

Chanook729 said:


> No worries...  I thought that using the different font for my comments would have seperated the two.
> 
> There are two sides to this story and most likely somewhere in the middle is the truth. We will ever have it?  Who knows.



That's fine.
Yes, always two sides to a story. 
And this just seems to be a wake up call to owners. We really need to be more involved with what goes on with the HOA when we are trusting them to work on our behalf. 
This should never have gone this far without us knowing and its our own fault.. owners should have been more on top of our investment.(speaking for myself , of course... others may be doing as they ought)

Thelma


----------



## DianeNYS

*You're right, Thelma*



tatvan said:


> Hi Diane,
> 
> As owners we ought to send Carlos the email asking him to make a video conference or conference call available for us on Tuesday. Lets tell him that would be a good use of our money. I will send an email to him right now. I would just call him but he is most likely in Florida setting up for the meeting.
> I did not receive this email. PI does not have any email addresses for me.
> Thanks for sending your email.
> 
> Thelma



And I WILL email him with that request; I should've thought of that myself   This whole thing with changing management companies is new for me; I don't ever remember this kind of thing happening with any of my timeshares (I own 5, and bought my first--OLCC--in 1990!)...either I've been VERY lucky in the past, or the (possible) controversies just flew right over my head in the past!   I truly appreciate your keeping up with this thread and all of my questions and concerns; it at least lets me know that I'm not alone out there in the wilderness! Thanks, again...


----------



## pgnewarkboy

tatvan said:


> But with the meeting on Tuesday I don't think we'll be given the lawsuit information and official correspondance from DRI at this late date.
> Now if they do terminate DRI then we do have time to look over important documents before a new management is in place. DRI contract ends in June. We can ask for the information you suggest before contracting with a new management company. SPM may not end up with the contract after DRI. What you suggest owners demand in regard to the new contract proposal does not seem unreasonable. We may need to consider two or three other management company before owners make the final decision.... I do think this ought to be an owners decision.
> Thelma




The Board should have the DRI letter or letters stating their intention on maintenance fees and collections. The board should be able to scan these documents  and make them an e-mail attachment to be sent to all owners.  Its done every day in the usual course of business.


----------



## happytraveler1

*happytraveler1*

Just heard that many people do not realize that Board Members do not live in Fla.  One lives in Wisc., some in Mass., some in Mich., and Canada.  Try to attend your resort meetings when in Fla.  Your HOA Board of Directors are just like you, average people.

Thanks


----------



## tatvan

DianeNYS said:


> And I WILL email him with that request; I should've thought of that myself   This whole thing with changing management companies is new for me; I don't ever remember this kind of thing happening with any of my timeshares (I own 5, and bought my first--OLCC--in 1990!)...either I've been VERY lucky in the past, or the (possible) controversies just flew right over my head in the past!   I truly appreciate your keeping up with this thread and all of my questions and concerns; it at least lets me know that I'm not alone out there in the wilderness! Thanks, again...



I hope others will make the request also. If we are not conferenced in that's fine we still have time for input on other management if DRI is terminated on June 3.
Thelma


----------



## tatvan

pgnewarkboy said:


> The Board should have the DRI letter or letters stating their intention on maintenance fees and collections. The board should be able to scan these documents  and make them an e-mail attachment to be sent to all owners.  Its done every day in the usual course of business.



You are saying these documents should be available to owners sometime in the future... correct? I don't think you are saying they should have them for us by Monday/Tuesday? 
Yea, whoever is being considered for management I will be asking for these documents. The Board has the information so they need to be more transparent with the owners. Your right, its the usual course of business.

Thanks
Thelma


----------



## tatvan

*Board Pres Requested I post*

*I received an email from Carlos Costa. He is doing 10,000 things right now preparing for Tuesday and other matters so asked if I would post the letter below onto TUG. I have not read it so now after I post I will read it. All I do know is that its from an owner who is an attorney  and supports what the Board is doing ..... so here its is....*

____

Carlos, you have my full support and may use this letter in any way that helps including copying it to other unit owners...

FELLOW OWNERS:

As an attorney I have seen too many good liars spin a very credible story by building half truths and outright falsehoods around a core of basic truths. Because the basic truth and half truths can be verified, people tend to believe the falsehoods that are attached. Half truths are intentionally designed to mislead. What I see here is an incredible number of half truths and possibly worse.

This is how I see it when I review the letters from Diamond Resorts and Carlos Costa, our Board President. 
1. Diamond Says: "Furthermore in 2007 Diamond did not charge you any management fees for a year and half."
That statement may be true BUT: I have never known a Management Company to be able to operate for free. Therefore, I must assume that they received their benefit in some other way. Since I don’t have access to the books, I can’t tell. It could be that they deducted the management fees from their share of the maintenance fees since the audit showed that they were delinquent at the end of 2007 and 2008. It could be that they deducted the fees from any rental income that the Association might have been entitled to. I do know this: Their services are not for free.

2. About Legal Services, Diamond Says: "Diamond does not charge you anyt hing for this service." Again a half truth. It is my understanding that like many management companies, they deduct the cost of legal fees and costs from the amounts collected. Therefore, while they may not charge us directly as a budget item, they are in fact being paid out of our money. If we have outside counsel, yes, it will be a line item on our budget but offsetting and hopefully greater will be the collections, all of it. I AM EXTREMELY DISTURBED THAT DIAMOND KEEPS THE UNITS THAT ARE FORECLOSED ON. I BELIEVE THAT THEY BELONG TO THE ASSOCIATION. They may take the approach that if they collect the back due maintenance fees that they are entitled to keep the unit. This is not true and I believe that absent a specific agreement, that they should be turned over to the Association. They should have been pursuing Deeds in Lieu of Foreclosure to minimize the costs. This is something that our Board can offer delinquent owners who wish to release their unit. I handle about 50-100 bankruptcies each year and many debtors surrender their units. Those units should go directly to the Association and not Diamond.

3. About maintenance fees: Diamond says: They are "fully paid up with more than $600,000 in 2008 fees and more than $250,000 in 2009 fees." Carlos Says: "...the 2007 audit showed that the Association was due $574,429 from the Developer and by December 31, 2008 this figure grew to $691,474.29." SOMEONE IS LYING! Unless they recently paid up in202009 so that they could make the claim that they are paid up. If this is the case, then again we have another half truth meant to mislead. As unit owners we are entitled to audit reports of our Association and if in fact Diamond was delinquent at 12/31/2008, then I think that their credibility no longer exists.

4. Diamond says that they paid 100% of our Bad Debt expense every year. As I understand it, they pay the maintenance fees so that they can rent out the units since the owners cannot use them if they are delinquent. So while they collect anywhere from $500-$1,500 for each week as rental fees, we only get the maintenance fee and they keep the rest. I have to believe that the rental income far exceeds the cost of the maintenance fees for all of the units they pay, otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it. 

5. Turnover problems: If Diamond had anything to do with the problems that the owners of Poly IV experienced, they should be sued. If they delayed turning over records, the owners should be compensated.
When Marilyn Windsor wrote back to me I was surprised that she didn’t deny the more serious allegations in Carlos’ letter. Her only response was more of the typical scare tactics that companies use to preserve their jobs. 
Living outside of Florida, it is hard for me to keep up with what is going on at our resort. I have to rely on the judgment of our Board members who serve without pay. I beli eve that Diamond Resort has a severe conflict of interest in trying to act as our management agent and an owner. If they benefit at our expense because they control the operations for their own rental programs then they have violated the fiduciary trust placed on them and cannot continue. We need to hire a management company that works for us and not themselves. While much of what Diamond tells you may be true, it is not the whole truth but only a half truth. In a court of law you are sworn to tell the whole truth. Anything less is a lie. That kind of deception concerns me and has lost my trust. 

Carlos, you have my full support and my best wishes for success.

Charles and Marsha Schutze
Unit 221 Week


----------



## youmehs

*Ownership Stages.*

Being a concerned owner is good....being a informed owner is heaven.
We are all concerned, some are consumed with concern. In this day and age we live in knowing correct knowledge is powerful, and it leads a concerned mind to an open mind.
Open mindedness is the lynchpin for good judgement. From what all I have read from both sides, DRI has the goods to run this for us. READ ME/HEAR ME!
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah....you'll all gripe because you have to pay someone to run our resort.
The way I see it, the few are leading the many down a path of great concern.
I am part of the many, so if you are like me, the many....PLEASE READ ON...
My sister had 2 units in POLY 4. 
I have been able to obtain a copy of the SPM management agreement with Phase IV and have had a chance to review it.  I also have my copy of the Diamond management agreement.  I have been told that the SPM management agreement for Phase I will be similar or the same as the one for Phase IV, if this is true, I think as the MANY owners we need to ask the following questions of both boards.  In reading many of the posts, it appears that we owners are under the false impression that we will have a say or “vote” in who the board hires as a management company.  I am told that this is not the case and that the Poly I board has already voted to sign a contract with SPM as soon as they terminate the agreement with Diamond. So much for our vote.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t like this, and I don’t think we should allow this board to make decisions like this that we will end up paying for.  Here are the questions I have after reading the two management agreements:

1.	THIS IS A 5 YEAR AGREEMENT. WHY WOULD WE ENTER INTO A 5 YEAR AGREEMENT WITH A COMPANY WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT?  THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH DIAMOND IS 3 YEARS, AND I THINK 3 YEARS IS A STANDARD TERM FOR A MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT.

2.	THE BOARD CANNOT TERMINATE THIS MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT EARLY WITHOUT PENALTIES, THEY CAN ONLY VOTE TO NOT RENEW AT THE END OF THE 5 YEAR TERM.  MR. COSTA CONTINUES TO CLAIM THAT THE BOARD CAN TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME; HOWEVER, THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT.


3.	THIS SPM MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT MENTIONS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS MORE THAN 5 TIMES, IF THEY ARE NOT PLANNING ON A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, THEN WHY IS IT MENTIONED SO MANY TIMES?

4.	THE SPM MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT STATES THAT SPM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ORGANIZING ALL OWNER AND BOARD MEETINGS AND THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THE AGENDA AND DISTRIBUTING THE NECESSARY MATERIALS.  SPM IS NOT PERFORMING THIS DUTY FOR PHASE IV, THIS IS BEING PERFORMED BY PHASE IV’S ATTORNEY, AND I WOULD ASSUME THE ATTORNEY IS CHARGING THE OWNERS FOR THIS SERVICE.  SPM IS COLLECTING MANAGEMENT FEES FROM PHASE IV TO PERFORM THIS DUTY, AND IT LOOKS LIKE  THE OWNERS ARE ALSO BEING REQUIRED TO PAY AN ATTORNEY FOR THE SAME DUTY.

5.	THE SPM AGREEMENT REQUIRES THE OWNERS TO PAY AT LEAST $650 A MONTH IN ACCOUNTING FEES EVEN THOUGH THE OWNERS ARE PAYING SPM A MANAGEMENT FEE TO PERFORM THESE ACCOUNTING DUTIES.  SPM WILL ALSO COLLECT A MANAGEMENT FEE ON THIS $650 A MONTH PAYMENT, WHY SHOULD THEY BE ABLE TO CHARGE MANAGEMENT FEES ON ACCOUNTING SERVICES THAT SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY?

6.	THERE IS A SECTION IN THE AGREEMENT THAT I THINK REALLY REQUIRES SOME CLARIFICATION, IT ALMOST READS AS IF THE BOARD IS ALLOWING SPM TO COMINGLE ASSOCIATION FUNDS WITH OTHER ASSOCIATION FUNDS.  COMINGLING SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.

7.	THERE IS A SECTION THAT STATES SPM IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTIONS.  IT STATES THAT THEY WILL ONLY SEND A LATE NOTICE AND THEN THE ASSOCIATION WILL BE REQUIRED TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY AND PAY ATTORNEY FEES FOR ALL COLLECTIONS.  SPM WILL NOT PROVIDE THESE COLLECTION SERVICES, BUT THEY WILL TAKE A MANAGEMENT FEE ON ALL COLLECTED ACCOUNTS.  THEY WILL ALSO COLLECT A MANAGEMENT FEE ON ALL ATTORNEY FEES PAID BY THE OWNERS.  DIAMOND CURRENTLY OFFERS ALL COLLECTION SERVICES AT NO COST TO THE OWNERS.  DIAMOND ALSO PAYS ALL LEGAL FEES FOR COLLECTIONS/FORECLOSURES.  DIAMOND ALSO HAS A STAFF OF MORE THAN 100 EMPLOYEES WHO MAKE COLLECTION CALLS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION, UNDER THIS MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT, SPM WOULD NOT PROVIDE ANY OF THESE SERVICES.

8.	THERE IS A SECTION THAT STATES IF THE ASSOCIATION RUNS OUT OF MONEY IN ANY GIVEN YEAR THAT THE BOARD WILL BE REQUIRED TO IMPOSE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ON THE OWNERS.  IT ALSO STATES THAT SPM WILL NOT ASSIST THE ASSOCIATION FINANCIALLY.  IN THE PAST DIAMOND/SUNTERRA HAS ALWAYS ASSISTED THIS ASSOCIATION FINANCIALLY.  DIAMOND HAS WAIVED MANAGEMENT FEES OF MORE THAN $180,000 AND MADE INTEREST FREE LOANS TO THE POLY ASSOCIATIONS IN EXCESS OF $600,000.  THIS WAS DONE TO ENSURE THAT THE OWNERS DID NOT HAVE A HIGHER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ASSOCIATED WITH PREVIOUS HURRICANE DAMAGE.  THIS MANAGEMENT CONTRACT DOES NOT STATE THAT SPM WILL DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN IMPOSE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND COLLECT MANAGEMENT FEES ON THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.

9.	THERE IS A SECTION THAT STATES SPM WILL ONLY ATTEND 1 ANNUAL MEETING A YEAR.  DOES THIS MEAN THAT IF MORE THAN ONE OWNER MEETING IS NEEDED THAT SPM WILL CHARGE US EXTRA? SHOULDN’T THEY BE REQUIRED TO ATTEND ALL MEETINGS, REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY THERE ARE?

10.	THERE IS A SECTION THAT STATES THE ASSOCIATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LEGAL FEES FOR SPM, EVEN IF SPM DOES SOMETHING WRONG, AND EVEN IF SPM IS NO LONGER THE MANAGER.

11.	THERE IS A SECTION THAT ALLOWS SPM TO COLLECT MANAGEMENT FEES BASED ON “ALL MONEY COLLECTED”.  THE FEE CAN VARY FROM 6.5% - 10%.  THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN ALSO ALLOWS SPM TO CHARGE A MANAGEMENT FEE ON ITS OWN MANAGEMENT FEE.  SPM WILL BE ALLOWED TO CHARGE UP TO A 10% MANAGEMENT FEE ON ALL MONEY DEPOSITED INTO THE ASSOCIATION BANK ACCOUNTS.  UNDER THIS SCENARIO, SPM WILL BE MAKING A MANAGEMENT FEE OFF OF THE LEGAL FEES THE OWNERS WILL BE PAYING FOR COLLECTIONS AND A MANAGEMENT FEE OF THE AMOUNTS COLLECTED.  IT WILL ALSO ALLOW SPM TO CHARGE A MANAGEMENT FEE ON ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.  IN REVIEWING THE FINANCIALS FOR THE ASSOCIATION, I SEE THAT DIAMOND/SUNTERRA NEVER CHARGED US A MANAGEMENT FEE ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.   DIAMOND’S MANAGEMENT FEE IS A FLAT FEE PER INTERVAL, IT DOES NOT GO UP AND CAN BE BUDGETED FOR ACCORDINGLY.  THIS FEE STRUCTURE FOR SPM CANNOT BE BUDGETED ADEQUATELY AND WE WILL NEVER KNOW IN ADVANCE HOW MUCH THEY WILL ACTUALLY BE CHARGING US FOR MANAGEMENT FEES.

12.	SEVERAL KEY ITEMS ARE ALSO MISSING FROM THIS MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT.  SUCH AS, 1) WHO DO THE EMPLOYEES WORK FOR?  ARE THEY EMPLOYEES OF SPM OR THE ASSOCIATION?  WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE EMPLOYEES?  WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SALARIES OF THE EMPLOYEES?  WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND PAYROLL TAXES?  WHO WILL PROCESS PAYROLL FOR THE EMPLOYEES AND IS THERE A FEE FOR THESE SERVICES?  WHO IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE EMPLOYEES, ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS A CLAIM MADE BY AN EMPLOYEE?  2) WHO IS PROVIDING RESERVATION SOFTWARE AND COMPUTERS?  WHO IS PAYING FOR THESE ITEMS? 3) WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UPKEEP OF THESE ITEMS?  

Are we doormats? I mean come on folks. I feel a ball and chain coming!


----------



## youmehs

*POLY I----Warning!!!!!!*

[Duplicate posts are not permitted on TUG - if you have more comments on this issue, please post them in this thread. - DeniseM Moderator]


----------



## TUGBrian

note for those of you reading this that are poly HOA/BOD members, I would be happy to host any scanned documents/info etc for you here on TUG if you need a place to allow your members to view the information more easily.

please let me know if you require any assistance.


----------



## DianeNYS

*Thank you, Brian*



TUGBrian said:


> note for those of you reading this that are poly HOA/BOD members, I would be happy to host any scanned documents/info etc for you here on TUG if you need a place to allow your members to view the information more easily.
> 
> please let me know if you require any assistance.



That is very kind of you, and it really *would* help if they took you up on your offer...Thanks!


----------



## tatvan

youmehs said:


> Being a concerned owner is good....being a informed owner is heaven.
> We are all concerned, some are consumed with concern. In this day and age we live in knowing correct knowledge is powerful, and it leads a concerned mind to an open mind.
> Open mindedness is the lynchpin for good judgement. From what all I have read from both sides, DRI has the goods to run this for us. READ ME/HEAR ME!
> Yeah, Yeah, Yeah....you'll all gripe because you have to pay someone to run our resort.
> The way I see it, the few are leading the many down a path of great concern.
> I am part of the many, so if you are like me, the many....PLEASE READ ON...
> My sister had 2 units in POLY 4.
> I have been able to obtain a copy of the SPM management agreement with Phase IV and have had a chance to review it.  I also have my copy of the Diamond management agreement.  I have been told that the SPM management agreement for Phase I will be similar or the same as the one for Phase IV, if this is true, I think as the MANY owners we need to ask the following questions of both boards.  In reading many of the posts, it appears that we owners are under the false impression that we will have a say or “vote” in who the board hires as a management company.  I am told that this is not the case and that the Poly I board has already voted to sign a contract with SPM as soon as they terminate the agreement with Diamond. So much for our vote.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t like this, and I don’t think we should allow this board to make decisions like this that we will end up paying for.  Here are the questions I have after reading the two management agreements:
> 
> 1.	THIS IS A 5 YEAR AGREEMENT. WHY WOULD WE ENTER INTO A 5 YEAR AGREEMENT WITH A COMPANY WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT?  THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH DIAMOND IS 3 YEARS, AND I THINK 3 YEARS IS A STANDARD TERM FOR A MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT.
> 
> 2.	THE BOARD CANNOT TERMINATE THIS MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT EARLY WITHOUT PENALTIES, THEY CAN ONLY VOTE TO NOT RENEW AT THE END OF THE 5 YEAR TERM.  MR. COSTA CONTINUES TO CLAIM THAT THE BOARD CAN TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME; HOWEVER, THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT.
> 
> 
> 3.	THIS SPM MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT MENTIONS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS MORE THAN 5 TIMES, IF THEY ARE NOT PLANNING ON A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, THEN WHY IS IT MENTIONED SO MANY TIMES?
> 
> 4.	THE SPM MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT STATES THAT SPM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ORGANIZING ALL OWNER AND BOARD MEETINGS AND THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THE AGENDA AND DISTRIBUTING THE NECESSARY MATERIALS.  SPM IS NOT PERFORMING THIS DUTY FOR PHASE IV, THIS IS BEING PERFORMED BY PHASE IV’S ATTORNEY, AND I WOULD ASSUME THE ATTORNEY IS CHARGING THE OWNERS FOR THIS SERVICE.  SPM IS COLLECTING MANAGEMENT FEES FROM PHASE IV TO PERFORM THIS DUTY, AND IT LOOKS LIKE  THE OWNERS ARE ALSO BEING REQUIRED TO PAY AN ATTORNEY FOR THE SAME DUTY.
> 
> 5.	THE SPM AGREEMENT REQUIRES THE OWNERS TO PAY AT LEAST $650 A MONTH IN ACCOUNTING FEES EVEN THOUGH THE OWNERS ARE PAYING SPM A MANAGEMENT FEE TO PERFORM THESE ACCOUNTING DUTIES.  SPM WILL ALSO COLLECT A MANAGEMENT FEE ON THIS $650 A MONTH PAYMENT, WHY SHOULD THEY BE ABLE TO CHARGE MANAGEMENT FEES ON ACCOUNTING SERVICES THAT SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY?
> 
> 6.	THERE IS A SECTION IN THE AGREEMENT THAT I THINK REALLY REQUIRES SOME CLARIFICATION, IT ALMOST READS AS IF THE BOARD IS ALLOWING SPM TO COMINGLE ASSOCIATION FUNDS WITH OTHER ASSOCIATION FUNDS.  COMINGLING SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
> 
> 7.	THERE IS A SECTION THAT STATES SPM IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTIONS.  IT STATES THAT THEY WILL ONLY SEND A LATE NOTICE AND THEN THE ASSOCIATION WILL BE REQUIRED TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY AND PAY ATTORNEY FEES FOR ALL COLLECTIONS.  SPM WILL NOT PROVIDE THESE COLLECTION SERVICES, BUT THEY WILL TAKE A MANAGEMENT FEE ON ALL COLLECTED ACCOUNTS.  THEY WILL ALSO COLLECT A MANAGEMENT FEE ON ALL ATTORNEY FEES PAID BY THE OWNERS.  DIAMOND CURRENTLY OFFERS ALL COLLECTION SERVICES AT NO COST TO THE OWNERS.  DIAMOND ALSO PAYS ALL LEGAL FEES FOR COLLECTIONS/FORECLOSURES.  DIAMOND ALSO HAS A STAFF OF MORE THAN 100 EMPLOYEES WHO MAKE COLLECTION CALLS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION, UNDER THIS MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT, SPM WOULD NOT PROVIDE ANY OF THESE SERVICES.
> 
> 8.	THERE IS A SECTION THAT STATES IF THE ASSOCIATION RUNS OUT OF MONEY IN ANY GIVEN YEAR THAT THE BOARD WILL BE REQUIRED TO IMPOSE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ON THE OWNERS.  IT ALSO STATES THAT SPM WILL NOT ASSIST THE ASSOCIATION FINANCIALLY.  IN THE PAST DIAMOND/SUNTERRA HAS ALWAYS ASSISTED THIS ASSOCIATION FINANCIALLY.  DIAMOND HAS WAIVED MANAGEMENT FEES OF MORE THAN $180,000 AND MADE INTEREST FREE LOANS TO THE POLY ASSOCIATIONS IN EXCESS OF $600,000.  THIS WAS DONE TO ENSURE THAT THE OWNERS DID NOT HAVE A HIGHER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ASSOCIATED WITH PREVIOUS HURRICANE DAMAGE.  THIS MANAGEMENT CONTRACT DOES NOT STATE THAT SPM WILL DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN IMPOSE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND COLLECT MANAGEMENT FEES ON THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.
> 
> 9.	THERE IS A SECTION THAT STATES SPM WILL ONLY ATTEND 1 ANNUAL MEETING A YEAR.  DOES THIS MEAN THAT IF MORE THAN ONE OWNER MEETING IS NEEDED THAT SPM WILL CHARGE US EXTRA? SHOULDN’T THEY BE REQUIRED TO ATTEND ALL MEETINGS, REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY THERE ARE?
> 
> 10.	THERE IS A SECTION THAT STATES THE ASSOCIATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LEGAL FEES FOR SPM, EVEN IF SPM DOES SOMETHING WRONG, AND EVEN IF SPM IS NO LONGER THE MANAGER.
> 
> 11.	THERE IS A SECTION THAT ALLOWS SPM TO COLLECT MANAGEMENT FEES BASED ON “ALL MONEY COLLECTED”.  THE FEE CAN VARY FROM 6.5% - 10%.  THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN ALSO ALLOWS SPM TO CHARGE A MANAGEMENT FEE ON ITS OWN MANAGEMENT FEE.  SPM WILL BE ALLOWED TO CHARGE UP TO A 10% MANAGEMENT FEE ON ALL MONEY DEPOSITED INTO THE ASSOCIATION BANK ACCOUNTS.  UNDER THIS SCENARIO, SPM WILL BE MAKING A MANAGEMENT FEE OFF OF THE LEGAL FEES THE OWNERS WILL BE PAYING FOR COLLECTIONS AND A MANAGEMENT FEE OF THE AMOUNTS COLLECTED.  IT WILL ALSO ALLOW SPM TO CHARGE A MANAGEMENT FEE ON ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.  IN REVIEWING THE FINANCIALS FOR THE ASSOCIATION, I SEE THAT DIAMOND/SUNTERRA NEVER CHARGED US A MANAGEMENT FEE ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.   DIAMOND’S MANAGEMENT FEE IS A FLAT FEE PER INTERVAL, IT DOES NOT GO UP AND CAN BE BUDGETED FOR ACCORDINGLY.  THIS FEE STRUCTURE FOR SPM CANNOT BE BUDGETED ADEQUATELY AND WE WILL NEVER KNOW IN ADVANCE HOW MUCH THEY WILL ACTUALLY BE CHARGING US FOR MANAGEMENT FEES.
> 
> 12.	SEVERAL KEY ITEMS ARE ALSO MISSING FROM THIS MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT.  SUCH AS, 1) WHO DO THE EMPLOYEES WORK FOR?  ARE THEY EMPLOYEES OF SPM OR THE ASSOCIATION?  WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE EMPLOYEES?  WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SALARIES OF THE EMPLOYEES?  WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND PAYROLL TAXES?  WHO WILL PROCESS PAYROLL FOR THE EMPLOYEES AND IS THERE A FEE FOR THESE SERVICES?  WHO IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE EMPLOYEES, ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS A CLAIM MADE BY AN EMPLOYEE?  2) WHO IS PROVIDING RESERVATION SOFTWARE AND COMPUTERS?  WHO IS PAYING FOR THESE ITEMS? 3) WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UPKEEP OF THESE ITEMS?
> 
> Are we doormats? I mean come on folks. I feel a ball and chain coming!



I see you are a guest and have been for only a few weeks...
I've seen enough of your post...March 23 'I'm Voting Diamond' and another post on March 30 'Hello Poly Friends" ... 
You are underhanded and deceiving. You want us to believe you're a walk around owner. 
Actually you seem to be and impress me to believe you are in fact  some sort.
DRI employee. 
I can appreciate the March 31 post from Shawn Ericson who wrote what he wanted to say and signed his name and his position with DRI. He was not trying to be sneeky about whathe was saying..... you on the other hand...
With you attempting to be deceptive, you lose all creditability with me. If most of the team at DRI are like you owners have to get rid of DRI... 

Thelma


----------



## lv_maui

tatvan said:


> I see you are a guest and have been for only a few weeks...
> I've seen enough of your post...March 23 'I'm Voting Diamond' and another post on March 30 'Hello Poly Friends" ...
> You are underhanded and deceiving. You want us to believe you're a walk around owner.
> Actually you seem to be and impress me to believe you are in fact  some sort.
> DRI employee.
> I can appreciate the March 31 post from Shawn Ericson who wrote what he wanted to say and signed his name and his position with DRI. He was not trying to be sneeky about whathe was saying..... you on the other hand...
> With you attempting to be deceptive, you lose all creditability with me. If most of the team at DRI are like you owners have to get rid of DRI...
> 
> Thelma



Thelma, I have read this post also and I can understand your concern but the questions are very legitimate since no one will give the Poly owners the facts, it should be considered.  

I think that numbers 3,5,7, and 8 are not of concern, but the other items are very important.  Is it true that a 5 year deal is being cut?  I personally always push for an agreement that can be 5 years but gives the ability to terminate with or without cause after one year.  SPM and DRI should agree to this each.

My problem with the Poly board strictly from what I have seen posted here is that they do not provide facts, just rhetoric.  They make a statement and then ramble on to another idle statement.

But I am not an owner so I really should not care.


----------



## timeos2

*Term shouldn't be set in stone but more of a gudieline*



lv_maui said:


> I personally always push for an agreement that can be 5 years but gives the ability to terminate with or without cause after one year.  SPM and DRI should agree to this each.



It is up to the Board to make sure any agreement - with new or existing management - has proper protection for both sides.  In at least one case I'm aware of the management hopefuls - all 5 of them - wanted  3 to 5 year contracts. OK, fine. If you are doing the job and the price is right I'm all for a reasonable to long term deal.  But all of  them had to include a 90 day and out clause. No owner vote required. What that said was either side can at will terminate the contract with 90 day notice. Period. So if things go well the original 3-5 years comes and goes and the contract is great. But if things go bad - for management OR the Association - a simple 90 day notice and poof - deal over.  Remember the owners are taking a risk as well - performance is a two way street. 

3 of the 5 hopefuls said "Sure - if you don't want us or we don't want you and we get 90 days notice to see if we can work things out or part ways we're fine with that. We don't want to be where we're not wanted"  The other two?  They didn't want to hear it "A deal is a deal. The term is the term. Why would would we let you out?"  Guess who made the cut to 3 contenders and guess what clause is in the deal we signed (and later extended for 10 - yes 10 years)?  A professional company, sure of what they do isn't scared to leave performance as the ultimate measure once they are assured the Association/Board is acting in the best interest of the owners. Those who are in it for the money and want the contract leverage in place to keep them on regardless of performance demand strict start / end dates. It spoke volumes to me and I would never sign a management agreement without a meaningful out clause.


----------



## lv_maui

John, I like your style.  I think that sums it up very well about multi year agreements.


----------



## DianeNYS

timeos2 said:


> It is up to the Board to make sure any agreement - with new or existing management - has proper protection for both sides.



Thanks for weighing in, John...The meeting was supposed to be at 10:30 this morning, and another private one for just the Board members at 1:30 this afternoon (I think those were the times). I'm curious how it all worked out, and hope that Goldman (or someone else in the know) will post here with information. I also hope they took the advice in your very helpful post--the real, extended one--above. I hope it's not too late...


----------



## tatvan

*rescheduled for may 15*



DianeNYS said:


> Thanks for weighing in, John...The meeting was supposed to be at 10:30 this morning, and another private one for just the Board members at 1:30 this afternoon (I think those were the times). I'm curious how it all worked out, and hope that Goldman (or someone else in the know) will post here with information. I also hope they took the advice in your very helpful post--the real, extended one--above. I hope it's not too late...



Hi,

I've been told there was not a quorum this morning so business could not be done. 
There were maybe 15 or so owners in attendance along with our board members and DRI with lawyers.
They rescheduled for May 15. 
So now we wait.

Thelma
P.S. I agree with John's post. I have been encouraging board members to read what's been posted. I think with the next management contract, board members will go in with eyes wide open!!


----------



## DianeNYS

*Information for last/next Meeting*

Here is one of three new emails I received today regarding the last HOA meeting, and its failure to reach a quorum. I'm posting it here for Poly I owners who are not on their email list, or other interested parties. I did "x" out personal info, since I'm not sure it is fair to the letter signers to put their personal info online:




> Dear Fellow Owners:
> 
> The Board of Directors held a meeting on April 7th for the purpose of conducting a count of proxies to remove Diamond Resorts as the management company for Polynesian Isles Resort Condominium Association.  Unfortunately, we did not get the required number of proxies needed for a quorum.  As a result, we have 90 days in which to solicit additional owners in order to receive the required number needed.  Therefore, we are making one last appeal to you, our owners.
> 
> By now, you have received information from both us and Diamond Resort.  You are most likely confused and unsure what is the right way to vote.  This letter is an attempt to answer questions which you might still have.  We are not going to lie to you.  We are volunteer owners who serve at your pleasure and who have nothing to gain from all of this.
> 
> Diamond has made many statements, which are simply NOT TRUE.  We would like to address these.
> 
> Yes, Diamond was paying the costs associated with foreclosures.  What they didn’t tell you was that rather than working with owners, who find themselves in a financial bind during these difficult times, and allowing them to work out a payment plan, Diamond is actively foreclosing immediately upon missed payments and acquiring the inventory for its own personal gain.  In the last year, Diamond has gone from owning less than 5% of the inventory to now owning 17% and it could rise to 21% once all the units have been completed that are still being processed.  This is Diamond’s way of gaining total and complete control of your association.  Your resort is owned by the owners.  Let’s keep it that way!  Your Board has allocated a line item budgeted for foreclosures.  It costs the HOA less than $350 to complete a foreclosure and only $50 for an owner to complete a “deed in lieu” rather than us foreclosing.  We have been very successful in this effort in the past of recovering the units and reselling them to our existing owners.  The money acquired from these resells is automatically rolled back into the budget so that we might pursue other foreclosures.  It is in Diamond’s best interest NOT to work with our owners, but rather foreclosure on them, because it allows Diamond to acquire more inventory at a VERY LOW RATE.  They, in turn, can resell the inventory at a HUGE profit.  We do not want to become one of their CASH COWS!  We want a company who is going to work with our owners and aggressively collect on those who are clearly unable to get caught up.  This will not happen under Diamond!
> 
> By Diamond having control over our inventory, they have access to use it as they please.  Currently owners are being denied use of their weeks because they are being told nothing is available – Diamond has used it!  Is this what you want as an owner?
> 
> Currently Diamond is paid a flat management fee regardless of their performance.  The new management company will be paid strictly on commission, which means if they don’t bring in maintenance fees and rentals, they don’t get paid.  This makes a win-win solution for everyone!  Diamond has repeatedly attempted to raise its management fees, plus add additional administrative fees.  Most recently, they requested a 10% increase.  It was not until Diamond learned that we were looking at an outside management company that they came back and tried to negotiate a lower fee. Who is to say that once they get the contract, they wouldn’t try this many more times over the course of a three year contract.
> 
> Unlike our owners, who are locked out of their units, when they don’t pay their maintenance fees, Diamond has been delinquent in paying their maintenance fees for 2008 and 2009, yet they have paid no late fees or interest and have continued to use the weeks without any penalties.  We believe they should be treated as any other owner.  Currently, we have a case of “the fox watching over the hen house”!  With an outside company, they will be treated the same as any other owner.
> 
> Diamond boasts all the wonderful things they have provided your resort with – new pool furniture, new mattresses, new linens, etc.  Rest assured, Diamond has given you NOTHING!  These items were bought and paid for by you through your maintenance fees.  These purchases were subsidized in NO WAY by Diamond.
> 
> Since Diamond took over, you have seen a continual rise in maintenance fees partially due to their so called “branded items”, which the resorts are being made to purchase.  An example…rather than purchasing a good quality coffee pot which would equate to a “Honda” automobile, resorts are forced to purchase the more expensive “Cadillac” model coffee pot instead.  Another example is all the advertising for Diamond in their expensive “check-in” packets.  One packet costs almost $5.00 per check-in, averaging more than $500 per week when something much less expensive would suffice and the additional money could be put to better use.  We need to take control away from Diamond and put it back in the hands of the owners.  We are Polynesian Isles and if any branding is to be done, it should be branded as Polynesian Isles, not Diamond.
> 
> Along with other timeshare companies, sales are way down for Diamond.  Money is not as free flowing from banks as it has been in the past.  Make no mistake, Diamond is going to get what it needs to function, sadly it’s attempting to get it at the hands of the resort associations and its owners.  I beg you, DO NOT FALL FOR THEIR SCARE TACTICS.  These are unfounded.  Unlike Diamond, who is only acting in its best interest, your Board always has, and always will, act in the best interest of the owners.  We are Board members have nothing to gain other than our desire of restoring our resort to one of unity and beauty without causing undue burden to its owners.
> 
> Your Board has done its “due diligence” and contacted Board members at every association managed by SPM Resorts (who we would like to use as our management company) and have continually been told that over the past several years their maintenance fees have either gone down or remained constant, yet they were still able to continue with major refurbishments, with no additional costs to the owners.
> 
> Polynesian Isles Resort Condominium IV Association has already signed a contract with SPM Resorts to manage its 78 units and have already recognized a savings in insurance alone.  It is seeing additional savings on a daily basis, which is further reassurance that they have made a wise choice in bringing in an outside, independent company to oversee the day-to-day operation of its units.  We would like to do that same!
> 
> If you voted to either keep Diamond or “abstained”, it’s not too late to change your vote.  We simply need you to resubmit your blue proxy, appointing Carlos Costa, and date it.  Under Florida Statute, the Board will use the most current blue proxy for counting purposes.  If you already submitted a proxy, you do not need to submit a new proxy, unless you are changing your vote.  Currently your resort is operating as two separate properties, managed by two separate companies.  Let’s bring the resort back together and restore its identity as a family-owned and operated property (you, its owners), not the Diamond corporation!
> 
> Please contact us via e-mail if you have any questions or concerns.  If you would like to speak with us personally, please e-mail us your telephone number and we will call you back.
> 
> 
> 
> Carlos Costa –xxxxxxx@xxxxxx.com
> Gary Emken – xxxxxxx@xxxxxx.com
> Eddie Lofton –xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.com
> 
> 
> Board of Directors for Poly I
> 
> Fax your blue proxy to Tom Durkee, CPA at (407) xxx.xxxx


----------



## DianeNYS

*Poly I Instructions for Owners...*

Here is their letter letting Owners know what to do next:



> POLYNESIAN ISLES RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
> NOTICE AND AGENDA OF UNIT WEEK OWNER RECONVENED
> (NON-DEVELOPER)  MEETING
> TO ALL NON-DEVELOPER UNIT WEEK OWNERS:
> 
> On MAY 15, 2009, at 10:00 A.M., at 3045 POLYNESIAN ISLES BLVD. , KISSIMMEE , FL, a reconvened meeting of the non-developer unit week owners will be held for the purpose of considering the discharge of the current management company, Diamond Resorts.  A “quorum” must be present, in person or by Proxy, at the meeting, in order for the business to be conducted.  It is therefore VERY IMPORTANT that you either attend or provide a Proxy.
> 
> AGENDA
> 1.         Certifying Quorum – Call to Order
> 2.         Certifying Notice of Meeting
> 3.         Vote on Discharge of Management Company
> 4.         Adjournment.
> 
> If you already submitted a proxy for the April 7, 2009 meeting and do not wish to change your vote you do not need to submit a new proxy.  If you submitted a proxy to Diamond and would like to change your vote please fax or mail a new proxy.  Under Florida law the latest dated proxy counts.  The Association has never received such an overwhelming amount of proxies.  However, we need 50% to establish a quorum.  We were very close so we need your proxy in order to terminate Diamond.  Again, please be sure to either attend the Meeting in person or submit a Proxy.  Thank you for your assistance in conducting the business of your Association.
> 
> Dated: April 13, 2009.
> 
> BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
> Carlos Costa
> 
> CARLOS COSTA, President


----------



## dougp26364

DianeNYS said:


> Here is their letter letting Owners know what to do next:




Never mind, I should have read the first letter before reading the last post. I can see the HOA/BOD's agenda a little more clearly now.


----------



## tatvan

DianeNYS said:


> Here is their letter letting Owners know what to do next:



Thanks Diane, 
I had not received these letters from the Board.
Thelma


----------



## DianeNYS

*Got my Proxy in the mail*

yesterday, and I'm sending it on to Carlos today...I'm urging any Owners at Polynesian Isles I to read their letter from the HOA, and if they are as concerned as I am that the Board should get control of the resort from DRI (at this point, I really feel that Carlos and the Board has the Owners' best interests at heart, and we SHOULD have a new management company), then they should fill it out, saying "Yes" to discontinuing DRI, and sign and date and mail back in the envelope provided ASAP. The next meeting is on May 15, 2009. 

As an Owner who cannot go to the meeting(s) in person, I appreciate all the time and effort the HOA is putting into this decision, and I really think all the drama is not good for the resort; it's time to move on to another Management Company that is more responsive to the Resort's and Owners' needs. Since I also own at Cypress Pointe, I've done some research and found that some of the same complaints Carlos and the Board has made about DRI are consistant with what went on over there, and life has been much easier for the Owners and the Resort itself--not to mention less expensive to maintain--since they moved on from DRI. I believe Carlos (his letter to Owners is posted a few posts above this one), and want to help. 

Let's hope they get enough Owners to attend the next meeting and enough proxys in the mail (or emailed) to reach a quorum this time so Poly I can move on and fix the problems, so we as Owners can rest assured that our Resort will operate well and for the benefit of all of us...Thanks!


----------



## Jeff Tobin

*Information for last/next meeting.*



DianeNYS said:


> Here is one of three new emails I received today regarding the last HOA meeting, and its failure to reach a quorum. I'm posting it here for Poly I owners who are not on their email list, or other interested parties. I did "x" out personal info, since I'm not sure it is fair to the letter signers to put their personal info online:



I've been an owner for about 14 years now.  This was the first time I attended a meeting as it coincided with my annual Spring break with my kids.  I've never been more sure that we need to get rid of Diamond.  They treated us with total disdain and were in fact, quite rude.  

They have failed to meet their obligation to provide proper accounting of expenditures and the providing of last years' budget in general.  Their attorney was a pompous ass and the fact they had the whip hand was obvious.  

I assessed what SPM management company was providing for Phase 4 and I like what I see.  I only wish I owned in that phase as we in phase I are going to take it in the shorts unless we dump Diamond.  I agree with Carlos that our management company should only be in the business of managing our money, making improvements to our complex, collecting unpaid dues from years past, foreclosing when necessary.  A management company should not be involved in feathering their own nest at our expense by buying up units and renting them and not sharing the profits with us.  A final point:  I own in phase I but I was assigned to Phase 4 because phase 1 was booked up.  I made my reservation last year (2008) while I was on Spring break.  What's up with that?

It is imperative that you vote your proxy in favor of Carlos, our President.  He has ceaselessly worked for our benefit with no other motive than our being treated with respect and our finances guarded with the fiduciary duty that should be required by a management company.  Diamond has continually shown they are unwilling to listen to us, the owners.  I have no other motive other than wanting to continue to own at Polynesian Isles.  However, if Diamond is allowed to continue with their brand of management, I offer my timeshare for sale to anyone interested.   I can be reached at 757-652-5448 and my email is jefftobin@cox.net.  Please don't hesitate to contact me if you think I am being overly pessimistic about this matter.

Sincerely,

Jeff Tobin


----------



## tatvan

Jeff Tobin said:


> I've been an owner for about 14 years now.  This was the first time I attended a meeting as it coincided with my annual Spring break with my kids.  I've never been more sure that we need to get rid of Diamond.  They treated us with total disdain and were in fact, quite rude.
> 
> They have failed to meet their obligation to provide proper accounting of expenditures and the providing of last years' budget in general.  Their attorney was a pompous ass and the fact they had the whip hand was obvious.
> 
> I assessed what SPM management company was providing for Phase 4 and I like what I see.  I only wish I owned in that phase as we in phase I are going to take it in the shorts unless we dump Diamond.  I agree with Carlos that our management company should only be in the business of managing our money, making improvements to our complex, collecting unpaid dues from years past, foreclosing when necessary.  A management company should not be involved in feathering their own nest at our expense by buying up units and renting them and not sharing the profits with us.  A final point:  I own in phase I but I was assigned to Phase 4 because phase 1 was booked up.  I made my reservation last year (2008) while I was on Spring break.  What's up with that?
> 
> It is imperative that you vote your proxy in favor of Carlos, our President.  He has ceaselessly worked for our benefit with no other motive than our being treated with respect and our finances guarded with the fiduciary duty that should be required by a management company.  Diamond has continually shown they are unwilling to listen to us, the owners.  I have no other motive other than wanting to continue to own at Polynesian Isles.  However, if Diamond is allowed to continue with their brand of management, I offer my timeshare for sale to anyone interested.   I can be reached at 757-652-5448 and my email is jefftobin@cox.net.  Please don't hesitate to contact me if you think I am being overly pessimistic about this matter.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Jeff Tobin




Wonderful enlightening post... thanks Jeff !!!

Thelma Sullivan


----------



## DianeNYS

*THANK you, Jeff*

for your personal take on what is going on. I so much appreciate your jumping in here to help motivate Poly I Owners to send in their proxys to vote out DRI. I would like to do more to bring this issue to more Owners' attention in time for the vote~~does anyone have any contacts to help with that? Does anyone belong to any other Timeshare Online Groups that they can link to this thread to bring it to their attention? If an Owner at Poly I knows anyone personally that also owns there, make sure you notify them of the problems with the Resort and get them to send their proxy to Carlos. And if you can, post your ideas--or, like Jeff, your personal experiences--here, so this thread stays near the top to garner more exposure. 

What brought me here to start this thread was the first mailing from Carlos that shocked and confused me, and I was searching for answers...With this new mailing that came yesterday, I'm hoping previously disinterested Owners will become curious as to what they should do. If they stumble into TUG during their search for answers, I hope this thread is visible enough to educate them. And helpful enough to motivate them to sign and return their proxy with a "yes" to discontinuing DRI. I love Polynesian Isles and want it to be the best it can be, to preserve the value of my investment and future vacations. Thank you to everyone who has been helpful to me, and willing to post here...keeping this information timely and visible during this important time of Poly I's "growing pains."


----------



## Walt

*Other Timeshare Sites*



DianeNYS said:


> for your personal take on what is going on. I so much appreciate your jumping in here to help motivate Poly I Owners to send in their proxys to vote out DRI. I would like to do more to bring this issue to more Owners' attention in time for the vote~~does anyone have any contacts to help with that? Does anyone belong to any other Timeshare Online Groups that they can link to this thread to bring it to their attention? If an Owner at Poly I knows anyone personally that also owns there, make sure you notify them of the problems with the Resort and get them to send their proxy to Carlos. And if you can, post your ideas--or, like Jeff, your personal experiences--here, so this thread stays near the top to garner more exposure.
> 
> What brought me here to start this thread was the first mailing from Carlos that shocked and confused me, and I was searching for answers...With this new mailing that came yesterday, I'm hoping previously disinterested Owners will become curious as to what they should do. If they stumble into TUG during their search for answers, I hope this thread is visible enough to educate them. And helpful enough to motivate them to sign and return their proxy with a "yes" to discontinuing DRI. I love Polynesian Isles and want it to be the best it can be, to preserve the value of my investment and future vacations. Thank you to everyone who has been helpful to me, and willing to post here...keeping this information timely and visible during this important time of Poly I's "growing pains."




Hi,

Here are Sites for posting about DRI.

Timeshare Forums with a Forum for Diamond Resorts International 

http://www.timeshareforums.com/

RedWeek.com has a page for Timeshare Companies.

http://www.redweek.com/forums/threads?forum_id=5

And this link is about DRI reducing owner benefits

http://www.redweek.com/forums/messages?thread_id=14638

And Yahoo has 3 groups for DRI.

It was report on Timeshare Forums that DRI has a program that searches the internet and lets them know when something has been posted using key words like DRI, Diamond Resorts, Sunterra et........ 

Anything you post here WILL be read by someone at DRI. If they take offense, you might even get a personal E-mail from them letting you know they're watching you. 

The Club Rules also state:

Upon the determination by the Club Operating Company that the
Member’s conduct constitutes conduct unbecoming to a Member of
THE ClubSM. The decision of the Club Operating Company shall be
final. Examples of unbecoming conduct may include, but shall not be
limited to, criminal behavior or threats and verbal abuse. A suspension
under this Section 3.10(d) shall normally be for a minimum of one
year. Certain serious acts may also result in termination of membership
with no option to reinstate. The Club Operating Company may also
recommend to the Affiliated Resort or Affiliated Collection in which the
suspended Member owns a Qualifying Interest that it take appropriate
disciplinary action against the suspended Member; or


Club Operating Company also reserves the right to suspend the membership
rights of a Member partially or completely for such other reasons as the
Club Operating Company, in its sole discretion, determines to be in the
best interests of THE ClubSM.

Except where required by law, Club Operating Company is under no
obligation to give any notice to the Member whose membership rights have
been suspended of the occurrence of the event causing such suspension or
that his membership rights have been suspended.

Walt


----------



## DianeNYS

*Thanks, Walt...*



Walt said:


> It was report on Timeshare Forums that DRI has a program that searches the internet and lets them know when something has been posted using key words like DRI, Diamond Resorts, Sunterra et........
> 
> Anything you post here WILL be read by someone at DRI. If they take offense, you might even get a personal E-mail from them letting you know they're watching you.
> 
> The Club Rules also state:
> 
> Upon the determination by the Club Operating Company that the
> Member’s conduct constitutes conduct unbecoming to a Member of
> THE ClubSM. The decision of the Club Operating Company shall be
> final. Examples of unbecoming conduct may include, but shall not be
> limited to, criminal behavior or threats and verbal abuse. A suspension
> under this Section 3.10(d) shall normally be for a minimum of one
> year. Certain serious acts may also result in termination of membership
> with no option to reinstate. The Club Operating Company may also
> recommend to the Affiliated Resort or Affiliated Collection in which the
> suspended Member owns a Qualifying Interest that it take appropriate
> disciplinary action against the suspended Member; or
> 
> 
> Club Operating Company also reserves the right to suspend the membership
> rights of a Member partially or completely for such other reasons as the
> Club Operating Company, in its sole discretion, determines to be in the
> best interests of THE ClubSM.
> 
> Except where required by law, Club Operating Company is under no
> obligation to give any notice to the Member whose membership rights have
> been suspended of the occurrence of the event causing such suspension or
> that his membership rights have been suspended.
> 
> Walt



This means that they would bump my 17,500 yearly points, because I take issue with the way their management company runs one of my Resorts?  That would be weird, because I LOVE The Club--I've always loved the way they work, and even my first post on this thread stated that if losing DRM at Poly I would lose me my points in The Club, I wouldn't be interested in letting them go...I would recommend The Club to anyone thinking about it, and HAVE recommended it to people I meet in person, as well as relatives and friends. If anyone connected with DRI reads this, please know that my issue is with DRM, NOT DRI...Thanks!


----------



## pgnewarkboy

Unbelievable paranoia.  Give me a break and the rest of the world a break from this bs puleez.  They probably tap your phones too and check your house on google street view.  If you want to change management companies change it.  Just stop loading this board up with junk.


----------



## Walt

*Well, You Better Believe It*



pgnewarkboy said:


> Unbelievable paranoia.  Give me a break and the rest of the world a break from this bs puleez.  They probably tap your phones too and check your house on google street view.  If you want to change management companies change it.  Just stop loading this board up with junk.



This thread is too important to the owners of Polynesian Isles to get on another subject.  But this is not just loading the board with junk.

Believe me, DRI is aware of your post.  It happen to me.  And I know of others that were told so too.

All you have to do is search on the Yahoo DRI owners web sites to find out more. There are 2 Web sites.  One is more for the UK and the other is for the USA. Both have information about this.  DRI even post on both sites.


----------



## dougp26364

pgnewarkboy said:


> Unbelievable paranoia.  Give me a break and the rest of the world a break from this bs puleez.  They probably tap your phones too and check your house on google street view.  If you want to change management companies change it.  Just stop loading this board up with junk.




I realize that you've had not problems with DRI and generally support DRI. That's fine as I respect all opinions and value insight from all points of view but, I agree with Walt. This is an extremely important decision for Poly Isle owners and one that will affect them whichever way they decide to go. Whether they continue forward with DRI or vote to change from DRI, it's extremely important for owners to flesh out all opinions. This is exactly what TUG is all about. 

If any of the resorts I own wanted to change management companie (and I do mean any, not just my DRI owned resorts), I would want and appreciate frank discussion on a forums such as TUG.


----------



## dougp26364

DianeNYS said:


> This means that they would bump my 17,500 yearly points, because I take issue with the way their management company runs one of my Resorts?  That would be weird, because I LOVE The Club--I've always loved the way they work, and even my first post on this thread stated that if losing DRM at Poly I would lose me my points in The Club, I wouldn't be interested in letting them go...I would recommend The Club to anyone thinking about it, and HAVE recommended it to people I meet in person, as well as relatives and friends. If anyone connected with DRI reads this, please know that my issue is with DRM, NOT DRI...Thanks!



So far I haven't known DRI to terminate or suspend an account just because of a difference of opinion. I have heard of them (but can't prove) suspending accounts if you're less than polite with any DRI rep (verbally abusive). I actually support this rule as I don't believe that anyone shoud ever be yelled at, called names or have to hear vulgar language. I am always aware that the person I'm talking with only answered the phone but didn't set the pollicy. There is no use in treating them with disprespect. For that matter, I wouldn't talk disrespectfully to any DRI principle as I just don't believe that's the way to get things done.

I have often taken issue with some of DRI's policy's and have NEVER had my account suspended nor has it ever been hinted at. DRI is not in practice of suspending accounts of those that simply disagree with them as far as I've seen.  

On the other hand, I am aware of a couple of owners who have stated their accounts have been suspended due to rental activity deemed to be a cottage industry or strictly for profit. These owners have been doing a rather large rental business (by their own admission) and not the owners that maybe rent a few of their points every year to family or friends. I have never heard of an owner renting a few thousand points out to family or friends having a problem with DRI or even getting any sort of warning. It's only been those renting points in the hundreds of thousands of points. Again, I support this policy as those that rent tend to take the best units producing the highest rentals, which reduces the number of prime units in prime demand seasons for those of use that actually want to vacation there using THE Club. 

Yes I am aware that DRI monitors forums but, I'm also not paranoid enough to think they are trying to single out owners to make examples of. Is it really a bad thing for a company to read what's written about it? If you ran a company, isn't that what you would do to see how owners felt and make improvements?

I don't believe you have to worry about your account being suspended or terminated just because you have a difference of opinion with how your resort is managed. If DRI did that, I suspect my account would have been suspended long ago. For all that DRI might or might not be, they are tolerant of a difference of opinion with regards to this rule.


----------



## pgnewarkboy

Walt said:


> This thread is too important to the owners of Polynesian Isles to get on another subject.  But this is not just loading the board with junk.
> 
> Believe me, DRI is aware of your post.  It happen to me.  And I know of others that were told so too.
> 
> All you have to do is search on the Yahoo DRI owners web sites to find out more. There are 2 Web sites.  One is more for the UK and the other is for the USA. Both have information about this.  DRI even post on both sites.



So, exactly who has been kicked out of DRI because of their post? Where is your proof. What happened to you, exactly?

DRI posts on public web sites of DRI owners.  HORRIBLE! OMG! They have broken their own code of evil secrecy. They should be monitoring all statements against them without being discovered.  That way they can exact their punishment more deviously.  Wait, maybe they posted intentionally to throw everyone off their real goal.  What could it be?  

 Someone is trying to inject fear into the discussion. Someone is trying to create and evil enemy in DRI.  What could the purpose of that be?  Maybe that person is really using google to check all the posts on everyone on this board.  Gee, I just posted  that there is a fear monger on the board, an anti-DRI agent.  That must be true.  Perhaps this post will get quoted all over the internet.  Maybe that person secretly works for another timeshare company.  I don't know.  I am not saying it is true - but can you refute it.

I better end this post now - I feel as though my very keystrokes are being monitored by forces that are working against me.  Yes! Yes! they are monitoring my keystrokes OMG! Can anyone here refute that!

I am not a supporter of DRI. I am a timeshare owner and user.  I could care less about DRI or any other company. I enjoy and am interested in logical, factual ,informative presentations on any topic.


----------



## Chanook729

*Diamond Letter - Rec'd Today*

Got this email late this afternoon.

A MESSAGE TO OUR FRIENDS AT POLY I
April 17, 2009


Dear Polynesian Isles I Owner:

Much has been written and said in recent weeks about Diamond Resorts’ management of your Resort. We understand that you are probably weary of this – so are we. We ask for your indulgence and attention to one more message. 

You have clearly indicated by your participation and your votes that you want a change in the management of Poly I. We hear you. We certainly hoped for a different result and continue to believe we are your best choice for management, but you’ve made your intentions clear.

Your Board continues to seek the additional votes and proxies to meet the quorum requirements imposed by Florida law as it has a right to do, but we want you to know that we are not continuing this fight.

Instead, we have today advised your Board in writing that we are assenting to the termination of our management of Poly I regardless of whether the additional votes or proxies are received.

As you know, under our contract with the Poly Master Association, we will continue to manage the common areas of the Resort on behalf of all owners, including the recreational facilities and the front desk. We pledge to continue to operate those portions of the Resort in the best interests of all owners of the Resort and to work with Southern Property Management (“SPM”) to provide you the trouble-free vacations you deserve. If you have any issues or concerns, please let us know.

Our affiliate, MMG Development Corp., the successor developer of Poly I, is a substantial owner of Poly I units – nearly 17% of the total. MMG paid maintenance fees of $445,563.89 for 2008 and $270,629.39 to date in 2009. Despite what you’ve been told, these payments included interest and late charges. MMG’s payment covers a substantial portion of your expenses.

The decisions of your Board affect MMG the same way they affect you. And MMG is gravely concerned. Like any other owner, its resources are not unlimited. If assessments were to substantially increase, MMG will, like all owners, have to consider whether continued payments make economic sense. The level of delinquencies, already high, is certain to increase.

So the question remains for all owners: under new management, how much of an increase in assessments are we looking at? Your Board President tells you he’s confirmed that, at resorts managed by SPM over the past several years, assessments have gone down or remain constant, and “major refurbishments” continue, all with “no additional costs to the owners.”

But we cannot let that statement go unchallenged. Because we know that your Board’s 2009 budget does not, in fact, contemplate cos t increases that we think are unavoidable, we are concerned that the Association’s solvency is at risk. Given our continued involvement with the Resort, we have a fiduciary obligation to tell you so.

Please consider the following:           

Under the much-criticized Internal Recovery Agreement MMG had with Poly I, all delinquent owner accounts were paid in full by MMG. That agreement is being terminated along with our Management Agreement. Poly I’s delinquencies are expected to be over $430,000.00 in 2009; an amount MMG – not the other owners - has paid up to this point. Your 2009 budget assumes that money will be paid in full. Now, it will not. There is no fund or provision to apply to cover those amounts now that MMG’s funds are not available. That money has to come from somewhere. Unless your Board has another plan we have not seen, that money will have to come from you in the form of increased as sessments or the Association will become insolvent.    
Diamond employs a national firm to do all of its foreclosures throughout the U.S. Based on the size of our account, the cost of the firm’s services was about $1,000.00 for uncontested foreclosures and about $1,500.00 for contested foreclosures. Of course, the Association paid none of these costs under the Internal Recovery Agreement – MMG did. SPM has no similar program as far as we know. So the Association will now bear all of the costs. Your Board President tells you that foreclosures will cost only $350.00. With all due respect, and based on our own vast experience, that statement is simply unbelievable. But make no mistake: the 2009 budget has no provision for any foreclosure costs, because MMG paid all of those costs up to this point. Not anymore. That money also has to come from somewhere. Again, it will have to come from you in the form of increased assessments unless the Association can find the funds elsewhere.
Under our management contract, our management fee was a flat fee per unit week. We did, indeed, ask to modify the contract to an increase that fee after maintaining it at the same level for seven years. Your Board rejected that proposed increase, so we continued to charge the old fee set in our contract and agreed to do so for three more years. Your 2009 budget addresses those fees. SPM charges a variable fee. To the extent that results in higher management fees, the funds to pay it have to come from somewhere. Again, you should expect to pay the excess. The same is true of any program provided by Diamond that will now be provided by SPM or someone else: if the cost is greater, the 2009 budget most likely doesn’t provide for it.
In a few months, SPM and your Board will propose your budget for 2010. We suggest you pay close attention to the numbers – we certainly will.

We wish you all the best. The Diamond Resorts Management Team


----------



## DianeNYS

*Got this too...*



Chanook729 said:


> Much has been written and said in recent weeks about Diamond Resorts’ management of your Resort. We understand that you are probably weary of this – so are we. We ask for your indulgence and attention to one more message.



And really, I don't quite know what to make of it...Hopefully someone from Poly I's HOA will respond here to let us know what is going on...


----------



## falmouth3

*Phase IV reservations*

Has anyone who owns a Phase IV unit been able to make a reservation for 2010?  I've now called 4 times and I keep hearing that I should have a confirmation soon, yet it's now been 18 days since the first phone call and no confirmation.


----------



## dougp26364

I'm going to jump in here and make a statement. Anyone who has read my posts knows I am not going to support everything DRI in knee jerk fashion. In fact, in the past some of my posts have ticked off DRI management enough to elicit a personal responce.

However, there is a basis for comparison of resorts managed by DRI and one the jettisoned DRI over 10 years ago. The resort I'm refering to would be Jockey Club in Las Vegas. Now as far as I know, the owners at JC are extremely happy with the management team they have now and there were not happy with DRI. However, a member of Timeshareforums.com posted current photo's of a Jockey Club unit that might be of interest. While it's not a bad looking unit and it's well maintained, IMHO, it's not up to the standards of current resorts being built or, older resorts being renovated. In the respect of maintaining AND improving/renovating units, I feel DRI has done a superior job. 

While I'm not always happy with some of the things DRI does and will voice my opinion on those matters, I can't say that DRI doesn't maitain and keep their resorts up to date. Other management companies and HOa/BOD's can't say as much.

So, for what it's worth, here's the link to pictures of a state of a resorts units that evicted DRI management well over 10 years ago. I don't know if it makes a difference to owners of Poly 1 but, it's something to keep in mind. Constantly update/renovate or just potentially maintain what you have today and hope it's nice enough for the future.
http://www.timeshareforums.com/forums/general-timeshare-discussions/89681-jockey-club-pics.html


----------



## lv_maui

Chanook729 said:


> Got this email late this afternoon.
> 
> 
> Your Board continues to seek the additional votes and proxies to meet the quorum requirements imposed by Florida law as it has a right to do, but we want you to know that we are not continuing this fight.



I can perfectly understand why DRI is giving in to the termination of their contract.  I think that Florida law prohibits the developer from voting so their 17% does not count at all for proxies.  All I can say is that I would not like to be SPM.  

However, in the long run, the deliquencies should not be that big of an issue if SPM develops a method to dispose of the weeks by recouping the costs of foreclosure.  IN the short run, I would think it is guaranteed that their will be increased costs not covered by the budget.

I can also add that I was told that VRI, a competing management company, did not want anything to do with this situation due to the bad situation that this was going to cause the HOA.  Think about that, VRI, a company that regularly went after Sunterra contracts, stayed out of this.


----------



## timeos2

lv_maui said:


> I can perfectly understand why DRI is giving in to the termination of their contract.  I think that Florida law prohibits the developer from voting so their 17% does not count at all for proxies.  All I can say is that I would not like to be SPM.
> .



Nothing in Fl law prohibits Diamond from offering their proxies toward a quorum or voting but they may be prohibited from using their votes to take control of the Board.  Without the often large quantity of votes held by developers (or their successors) many resorts could not make a quorum when required.


----------



## csalter2

*Watch Out!*

I don't have any interest in Polynesian Isles, but I will make one suggestion to their owners, "WATCH OUT".

If a major corporation like DRI is placing the kind of information in writing and sending it to you in a very formal manner of communication, then as an owner or someone who has to make a big decision like that Board does, had better have all of the facts straight. 

I believe that the owners will suffer because I believe that DRI is sharing the truth about the HOA's preparedness since they were keeping the books. That is a lot of money that DRI is saying they carried. If they weren't, then they would not put that in writing knowing that they could be taken to court on anthing written in that document.


----------



## DianeNYS

*Hey, John...*

Do you have any opinions (that you can share here) about the letter DRI sent to us Poly I Owners (the one posted a few posts above this one)? It sure does seem pretty foreboding to me, making me very worried about new/extra costs that will magically appear the moment SPM takes over management of the Resort. In your experience with a HOA taking over their Resort and/or changing management companies, do terrible things tend to follow? I don't remember any "sky is falling" moments at Cypress Pointe, but what do I know?  

Thanks for keeping an eye on this thread, and for giving your opinion when you could...It means more to me than you can know...Thanks!


----------



## timeos2

*Chicken Little won't be needed*



DianeNYS said:


> Do you have any opinions (that you can share here) about the letter DRI sent to us Poly I Owners (the one posted a few posts above this one)? It sure does seem pretty foreboding to me, making me very worried about new/extra costs that will magically appear the moment SPM takes over management of the Resort. In your experience with a HOA taking over their Resort and/or changing management companies, do terrible things tend to follow? I don't remember any "sky is falling" moments at Cypress Pointe, but what do I know?
> 
> Thanks for keeping an eye on this thread, and for giving your opinion when you could...It means more to me than you can know...Thanks!



There are always two sides to every story and timeshare management arguments are no exception. Will there be areas where DRI may have excelled and SPM struggle? Absolutely. But hopefully there will be more where SPM does a superior job given the chance and owner support. 

I would not expect that new costs will suddenly appear if the Board has done their homework before making this change. But do be aware that if things were poorly handled - things like collections, maintenance, upgrades, etc - a new management may rightfully say to do it right will require more dollars. Hopefully they will find areas (staffing, commodity costs, service contracts, etc) where there can be savings so any impact will be minimal.  

It sounds like DRI has decided the battle isn't worth it. As they hold a significant number of intervals if they really thought the sky would fall they wouldn't give up without an all out fight to the end. They will be paying the same rate for theirs as you do for yours, but they have a much bigger overall bill. Money thrown away in fighting costs both sides and does nothing to improve a resort. Let the new group have a go at it and, should they fail, find someone better next time. My guess is that's the approach  DRI has decided makes the most sense financially.  

I would certainly keep an eye on things and make your Board members responsible and hopefully responsive, but overall you should be fine.  Best wishes to all at Poly for a bright resort future and manageable fees. Lets hope your Board has made a wise rather than emotional choice. And kudos to DRI for recognizing the need to move on with whats best for the resort in the long run. You'll all have a new benchmark to measure against when the next contract comes due.  It goes quicker than you think.  All options should be on the table in a very open process when that rolls around.


----------



## DianeNYS

*Thanks, John *



timeos2 said:


> There are always two sides to every story and timeshare management arguments are no exception. Will there be areas where DRI may have excelled and SPM struggle? Absolutely. But hopefully there will be more where SPM does a superior job given the chance and owner support.
> ...
> 
> It sounds like DRI has decided the battle isn't worth it. As they hold a significant number of intervals if they really thought the sky would fall they wouldn't give up without an all out fight to the end. They will be paying the same rate for theirs as you do for yours, but they have a much bigger overall bill. Money thrown away in fighting costs both sides and does nothing to improve a resort. Let the new group have a go at it and, should they fail, find someone better next time. My guess is that's the approach  DRI has decided makes the most sense financially.
> ...



I value your opinion and experience, and what you say makes sense. DRI's decision to let the management gig go, surprised me--you're probably right that it wasn't worth the struggle and $$$$ to fight it anymore. I'm glad it's over (it IS, right?)...Now I just hope it all ends well. I've learned a lot through all of this, and do plan on keeping in touch with my HOA Board members. Now that I have all their names and emails and some of their phone numbers, it shouldn't be too hard. You really have been helpful during this ordeal   Thanks, again...


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Yahoo.*




DianeNYS said:


> I've learned a lot through all of this, and do plan on keeping in touch with my HOA Board members. Now that I have all their names and emails and some of their phone numbers, it shouldn't be too hard.


Some timeshare HOA-BODs get effective use out of the "Groups" feature over at Yahoo Dot Com as a way of making information available to owners & as a means of 2-way communication between the owners & the HOA-BOD -- not to mention a fun way for owners to interact among themselves. 

If your HOA-BOD isn't already doing that, you might want to think about suggesting that they give it some consideration. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## DianeNYS

*Very good idea!*



AwayWeGo said:


> Some timeshare HOA-BODs get effective use out of the "Groups" feature over at Yahoo Dot Com as a way of making information available to owners & as a means of 2-way communication between the owners & the HOA-BOD -- not to mention a fun way for owners to interact among themselves.
> 
> If your HOA-BOD isn't already doing that, you might want to consider suggesting that they give it some consideration.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



Thanks, Alan~~That's a very good idea! I've never been on any Yahoo Groups (heard of them, of course)...I'll try to find out if they have one there already. TUG really does have some very knowledgeable, helpful members; it's why I came here first with my initial questions! I appreciate your contributions to this thread, also...


----------



## rickandcindy23

Did anyone ever find a Yahoo group for Polynesian Isles owners?  If so, I would like to join for my friend who owns there and is deaf.  She has lots of questions about the new management company.


----------

