# SDO Election Results - not good



## DeniseM (Oct 18, 2012)

*I am furious!* 

There wasn't a quorum for the election today, so even though Charles Baron won the popular vote, the board re-appointed John Cummings "I need a big car" to the board, and appointed Jody Lee to the 2nd spot - even though she received fewer votes than Charles Baron.  This was, of course, Starwood's recommendation.

They also passed the entire renovations budget recommended by Starwood, and that means there will be a 30% increase in the MF.

*SDO 2013 MF from official meeting handout*.
Standard 1bd = $615.43
Deluxe 1bd = $725.33
2 bd lock off = $1,055.03

But remember - Starwood works for us!


----------



## hypnotiq (Oct 18, 2012)

Wasn't a percentage of the 30% already included in the 2012 fees? 

I thought I remember reading that somewhere.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 18, 2012)

hypnotiq said:


> Wasn't a percentage of the 30% already included in the 2012 fees?
> 
> I thought I remember reading that somewhere.



Yes - we paid part of it this year.

From the previous email from the (former) board president:



> We have $10 million in reserves. To cover the additional cost, maintenance fees were increased about 7% in 2012 and will increase over the next 2 years as follows: 12% (2013), 8% (2014).


----------



## timeos2 (Oct 18, 2012)

That is a real shame and shows how hard and important it is to get every owner to send in a proxy and/or attend meetings.  If the popular vote was for other candidates they should have used that to appoint the positions. We would have if that happened to us as it's the only fair way to go. 

Denise you did all you could.  Great job.


----------



## csxjohn (Oct 18, 2012)

So what happened to the Az law that we saw posted in the other thread concerning the absence of a quorum?


----------



## krj9999 (Oct 18, 2012)

If the numbers posted are correct, the 12% was not fully implemented for 2013?

And at least we got 1 of the preferred 2.


----------



## grgs (Oct 18, 2012)

$1055.03 is about a 7% increase over the 2012 mf of $986.08 for a 2 bd annual LO.  So much less than the 12% increase that had been discussed earlier.  Perhaps the proposed renovation budget came out less than expected.  Hppefully, we'll get some additional information about that.

Glorian


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 18, 2012)

I don't believe the 12% increase is based on the 2012 MF.  If the increase started in 2012, then "I think" the 3 increases were calculated based on the 2011 MF.  I will try to find out.

2011
2 bdm. - $908.41
Lg. 1 bdm. - $624.54
Sm. 1 bdm. - $529.91

2012
2 bdm. - $986.08 (about an 8.5% increase over 2011)
Lg. 1 bdm. - $677.93
Sm. 1 bdm. - $575.21

2013
2 bdm. - $1,055.05 (about a 16% increase over 2011)
Lg. 1 bdm. - $725.33
Sm. 1 bdm. - $615.43


----------



## grgs (Oct 18, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> I don't believe the 12% increase is based on the 2012 MF.  If the increase started in 2012, then "I think" the 3 increases were calculated based on the 2011 MF.  I will try to find out.



Thanks, Denise.  It would be good to know.  I've already come up with a couple of different ways the 30% figure _could_ be interpreted.

Glorian


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 18, 2012)

grgs said:


> Thanks, Denise.  It would be good to know.  I've already come up with a couple of different ways the 30% figure _could_ be interpreted.
> 
> Glorian



TRUE - One would HOPE that we will get a complete report from the board with our  MF bill!


----------



## jarta (Oct 19, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> *I am furious!*
> 
> There wasn't a quorum for the election today, so even though Charles Baron won the popular vote, the board re-appointed John Cummings "I need a big car" to the board, and appointed Jody Lee to the 2nd spot - even though she received fewer votes than Charles Baron.  This was, of course, Starwood's recommendation.
> 
> ...



There were 2 separate meetings held - one right after the other.  One for the owners, if there was a quorum present, to elect new board members.  One for the board members to fill temporary board vacancies due to a lack of a quorum and to consider business coming before the board.

If the quorum for the election was not met, the board does not have to adjourn the meeting for 5 minutes.  The annual meeting was probably adjourned until more of a quorum could be obtained.  It's up to the board when, during the next 90 days, the election will be held.

However, if the board decides the annual meeting needs to be adjourned, it does not mean that all resort business ceases until the the election is finally held.  No State law leaves a board unable to transact business if a quorum in an election is not present at the date the election is set.

If you think that the 3 remaining members cannot exercise appointment power until the quorum is met and the election is actually held, please cite a portion of the declaration or the Arizona Revised Statutes.  (Please note that my opinion is that the appointments made are to fill temporary vacancies and, when a quorum is reached, the winners of the election must be seated.)  But see ARS 33-2204B.   

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/33/02204.htm&Title=33&DocType=ARS

Glad that Dr. Lee was appointed.  She seems qualified. (You said you voted for her).  Baron, IMO, who knows?  I do know Cummings runs a financial services firm that manages $450M in funds of clients.   Salty


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 19, 2012)

According to the board, as advised by their Starwood liaison, *A. William "Bill"  Bailey III, Associate Director, Board Relations*, today's appointments are permanent, until the next annual board meeting in Oct. 2013.

If you want to ask Bill Bailey about AZ law, his email is Bill.Bailey@starwoodvo.com

Oh, by the way, *"Big Car" Cummings* is now our board president....


----------



## krj9999 (Oct 19, 2012)

The only way you can get to 30% over 3 years is if the 7%, 12%, and 8% are multiplied onto each other (actually rounds to ~29.5%).

So the 12% previously indicated for 2013 should have been multiplied against the 2012 MF.  Maybe they went up less than expected; or perhaps adjustments to prior year surplus/deficit.  But guess we'll have to wait until the bills come out.  



DeniseM said:


> TRUE - One would HOPE that we will get a complete report from the board with our  MF bill!


----------



## jarta (Oct 19, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> According to the board, as advised by their Starwood liaison, *A. William "Bill"  Bailey III, Associate Director, Board Relations*, today's appointments are permanent, until the next annual board meeting in Oct. 2013.
> 
> If you want to ask Bill Bailey about AZ law, his email is Bill.Bailey@starwoodvo.com
> 
> Oh, by the way, *"Big Car" Cummings* is now our board president....



I'd iike to see if the minutes of what happened at either or the combined meetings match your third-hand statements.  I was not there.

I think the board appointments are effective until the next election (your source may have misconstrued what was said) but the state statute requires that, if there is no quorum, the annual meeting must be adjourned and a new election has to occur (the statute uses "may" but I believe that in this case "may" means "shall" because the election rights of 3rd person owners are involved) at a renewed annual meeting not more 90 days out.  At that renewed annual meeting, the statutory quorum is 10% of the owners.  There is no provision in the statutes about what happens if there is no 10% quorum at that 2nd meeting.  (If "may" denotes optional at the discretion of the remaining board members, no 2nd try for a quorum need be attempted.  I really don't agree that "may" means optional - even though making a 2nd attempt at a quorum may cost the resort money.  Voting rights are important.)  

If that new annual meeting did, in fact, occur 5 minutes later but the total votes present were less than the statutory 10%, I admit that SDO owners are not very good corporate citizens.  But, operations at SDO must be ongoing, the SDO association must be governed by someone and the last persons elected should be free to disregard the less than 10% who were present in person or by proxy.  (Your post omits any information on what percentage of owners were present and how many "votes" each person received.  It seems odd that any vote would be announced in the absence of a quorum being present since the failure of a quorum determines whether any voting at all can take place.  I admit that exact compliance with all statutory requirements inadvertantly does not occur in all instances.  But, if there is no quorum, there should be no vote casting or counting.)

My only interest here is that the statutes be complied with when the directors are elected or selected by appointment of remaining board members.  I have no say-so or axe to grind about the cost or scope of the renovation.  But, I've visited SDO.  It needed ADA compliance improvements when I was there and it had a tired and worn out patina.

If you are an SDO owner and are unhappy with what occurred, please do something.  Posting your impression here of something someone thinks happened won't get you very far.  Find out from Bailey what happened and what the official opinion on the use of "may" means.

Starwood may not have the same opinion I have about the necessity of a 2nd try for a quorum.  Starwood could be right; I could be wrong.  You think I usually am wrong anyway.  lol!

Force a new election to be held if the statutes were violated.  Get Baron and Lee properly elected if the appointment process was not legal.  Then, lobby to have the board adopt a restructured renovation plan and even delay sending out 2013 MFs until that happens (thus bankrupting SDO).  Lobby to force out Starwood.  Let all those you recommended to purchase at SDO lose their Starwood preference.  In other words, turn SDO into something similar to WSJ.

Or, accept the fact that the adoption of the renovation plan and the 2013 budget at the board, not the annual owners, meeting was legal because the (temporary, IMO) appointments yesterday to the board vacancies were allowed by Arizona law and the board voting took place before the 2nd election, IMO, needed to take place (90 days).  

(I also suggest that if there were 3 remaining members of the SDO board, a quorum of legal board members was present and, even if they were the only ones to vote, the vote would have been 2-1 to adopt the renovation plan and the budget.  BTW, do you have any information on how Dr. Lee did vote and what the final vote on these matters was at the board meeting?  It might make a difference on how far you want to push things.)

Finally, I suggest, as an SDO owner, you email Starwood/Bailey (or his boss, Shawn O'Brien) with your questions instead of me.  You are the SDO owner who is unhappy.  And, please post in full any response you receive.   Salty


----------



## holoholo (Oct 19, 2012)

*Charles Baron was the 1st place choice of SDO owners*

I am pleased to announce that Charles Baron was the clear choice of the SDO owners.  There were 2,056 votes received and Charles Baron was 1st place while Jody Lee was 2nd place.   We were not told where the other candidates placed; Joseph Healy and John Cummings.  These 2,056 votes represent the voice of our owners and it is my opinion that the board should act in alignment with the popular vote.  

As in every election in the history of SDO, there were not enough votes to reach a quorum (15% of the owners, or 3,619 votes required) and therefore, John Cummings remains on the Board until an election where a quorum is reached with an opposing candidate with more votes. I recommended that we fill the remaining vacant position with the 1st place candidate Charles Baron, however, the Board decided to appoint Jody Lee instead.  Jody is well qualified and will be a good addition to the Board, however, Charles was the top choice and we can only speculate why the board didn’t pick him.  Some believe it was to maintain a better male/female balance on the board, while others believe the recent postings on TUG were upsetting to some board members and therefore they decided NOT to pick Charles Baron (regardless of the outcome of the popular vote).  So there you have it, without a quorum, the Board has the option to completely ignore the owners’ votes.  

There are a couple issues that add to the challenge of reaching a quorum:
1. The Declaration dictates that the Association owned weeks have no appurtenant voting rights. No "appurtenant voting rights" means those weeks cannot even be used to count toward a quorum.
2. Our Association requires that we include delinquent owners when calculating the required number of votes to reach a quorum.  This seems illogical because these are inactive accounts and this makes it even more difficult to achieve a quorum, especially when delinquencies are so high. The Association documents do permit the Board to suspend voting rights, but to do so the Board must provide notice and hold a hearing before suspension can happen. We discussed this during the board meeting and the good news is that next year it was agreed to go through the process of suspending voting rights of delinquent owners. 

To top off the meeting, John Cummings was voted our new SDO President and I was voted Vice President.  

In summary, some board members don’t understand TUG, and this cost Charles Baron the election. Next year, we will:
A. Educate the SDO board on the benefits of TUG and open communication and encourage them to listen to the voice of the owners. 
B. Suspend the voting rights of the delinquent owners to improve our chances of reaching a quorum. 
C. Ask Denise to continue supporting our efforts to keep SDO owners well-informed and help us reach out to more SDO owners.  
D. Encourage Charles Baron to run again, win again, and then FINALLY get a seat on the SDO board. 

Regards,
Keith Terry
Vice President, Scottsdale Pinnacle Owners Association


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 19, 2012)

Thanks for posting Keith - when will the next election be?


----------



## jarta (Oct 19, 2012)

> In summary, some board members don’t understand TUG, and this cost Charles Baron the election.



Perhaps the SDO board members read and took offense at the critical tone of the posts on TUG and that didn't help Baron's chances.  It would only be human nature to be offended by some of the things posted here about the board members.  The posts allege the SDO board members don't care about the interests of the SDO owners.  Do you think that's a fair statement?

What benefits of TUG do you feel the board members do not understand?  How do you suggest TUG can improve the chances of getting people like Baron elected if less than 15% of the owners care enough about alleged mismanagement (was there mismanagement when you were president?) to cast votes?  A quorum of 15% should not be hard to meet if SDO is being poorly managed.

BTW, how did you vote on the proposals for the renovation and the 2013 budget?  (I assume you voted No.)  How did Dr. Lee vote on the matters approved?  And, what was the final vote of the board on the matters approved?    Salty


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 19, 2012)

Starwood held the vote on the renovations before the election - I'm sure they were concerned that the new officers might vote against it.

If the board members are not able to cope with public scrutiny of their actions as board members, they should not have run for the board.  In my opinion, they failed in their duty to owners when they did not appoint the candidate that earned the most votes.


----------



## levatino (Oct 19, 2012)

I was going to suggest that they pick persons with the highest votes, regardless of the quorum, to at least maintain the semblence of democratic principles.

Alas, not Starwood. I am  Quite displeased.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Oct 19, 2012)

"Big Car" Cummings cracks me up - that is being penny-wise dollar-foolish (how much more per day is a big-car vs a smaller car - or anybody with membership already gets...???) about the overall situation at SDO.  and yes - I realize that it could somehow be a sign of not caring about the 'little' folks (except if it were me - I would request a big car as well)

be careful what you wish for - and now... apparently, be careful what you post - it may come back to haunt you.

did I see that correctly - that SDO MFs are almost as much as WKV?

As I 'ranted'somewhere before - the people with low value SDO VOIs may start walking away and a 'distribution of {ahem} wealth' may be in the future for SDO (and WKV as well... or any SVO that has low value seasons where the MFs get to high to burden).  If anyone at SVO reads this... please take this into account.


----------



## jarta (Oct 19, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Starwood held the vote on the renovations before the election - I'm sure they were concerned that the new officers might vote against it.
> 
> If the board members are not able to cope with public scrutiny of their actions as board members, they should not have run for the board.  In my opinion, they failed in their duty to owners when they did not appoint the candidate that earned the most votes.



4 of the new officers/board members are the same as the 5 old board members.  Unless the vote on renovations would have been reversed by the appointment of the one new member (Dr. Lee), there is no difference in the outcome of the vote.  

I've asked what the final vote was.  You don't seem to want to answer that one.  So, I'll ask again.  What was the final vote on the renovations?  I assume the old president (who is still on the board, but in a lesser role) voted against the renvation proposal.  Was it 4-1, 3-2 with one of the 3 being replaced by Dr. Lee or was 3-2 with all 3 being retained on the new board?  (Or, did the poster/ex-president vote Yes and make it 5-0?)

Finally, it seems like there no lack of public scrutiny going on here.  By voting in favor of continuing the renovation started last year the board members breached their duty?  Or, is it just that their opinion of what should occur doesn't agree with your opinion of what should occur and that alone makes their vote a failure of duty?  Do you even know what the duty of a board member is?  It's to utilize one's own best judgment of what's in best interest of the resort.  (Your attitude is eerily reminiscent of T. Clemente who thought he should control Schrag and Werbel after they won election to the WSJ board just because he supported them.)

Look, you blew whatever chance Baron had of getting an appointment to the SDO board by repetitive attacks on his behalf against the SDO board members.  You lost.  Your tactics were not effective.  Give it a rest.  Give the SDO board a reason it should listen to what is said on TUG.

BTW, I still think that "may" means "shall" in the Arizona statute on quorums and the appointments of new board members are only good for 90 days.  In this respect I disagree with Starwood.  But, it doesn't matter for the renovation.  A vote on the renovation at a board meeting before the start of the meeting of the members to elect new board members is certainly a legal vote by the old board members.  Seems your hardball tactics were countered by smarter hardball tactics.      Salty


----------



## Ken555 (Oct 19, 2012)

DavidnRobin said:


> "Big Car" Cummings cracks me up - that is being penny-wise dollar-foolish (how much more per day is a big-car vs a smaller car - or anybody with membership already gets...???) about the overall situation at SDO.  and yes - I realize that it could somehow be a sign of not caring about the 'little' folks (except if it were me - I would request a big car as well).



Finally. Some common sense - thanks, David! I really don't care about the size of the car, as long as the guy is doing what he should - looking out for the owners and the property. Is this 'big car' syndrome indicative of bad decisions? In and of itself, no. But does Cummings question Starwood? Look for competing bids for improvements to the resort which may save owners money? I don't know. I'd like to assume so. But I haven't seen anything from the board that explains their decision (note that I only became an owner at SDO this year, so if there was a mailing about this prior to when I became an owner, I just don't have it). 

Regardless, I'd really like to see all SVN boards become much more transparent with their decision making, publish a synopsis of the options they were presented with for big decisions and explain briefly why they choose the one they did. It would also be nice to know if they choose the Starwood preferred choice. I know, from my HOA experience (not timeshare, residential) that often our management company presents options that really aren't the best for our HOA and the board makes alternative decisions. I'd like to see the same type of scrutiny by the SDO Board. If this is already happening, then this post should serve to prove that some (or many) of us don't know all that the Board does and that it's time to explain. Is that too much to ask?


----------



## Ken555 (Oct 19, 2012)

jarta said:


> Seems your hardball tactics were countered by smarter hardball tactics.



Well. It seems to me that posting on TUG that some prefer one candidate over another really shouldn't be taken to mean that the Board should not choose one candidate over another, given the choice. My guess is that the Board wanted the candidates they wanted (as did Starwood) and they would have chosen them regardless of anything that was posted here, or anywhere else. On the other hand, threads like this really can't be all that positive for those at Starwood and I can surmise that they might be inclined to try to influence future similar posts. Sending a message that TUG contributed - if even just a little - to the decision that was reached on which candidate to appoint means, to me, that this forum has influence, even though it didn't go the way some wanted. It's too bad that those on the Board had to make the decision they did, but I assume they have good reasons for it. If one of those was truly that it was simply what 'TUG' didn't want, then I have absolutely no confidence in their decision making ability.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 19, 2012)

DavidnRobin said:


> "Big Car" Cummings cracks me up - that is being penny-wise dollar-foolish (how much more per day is a big-car vs a smaller car - or anybody with membership already gets...???) about the overall situation at SDO.  and yes - I realize that it could somehow be a sign of not caring about the 'little' folks (except if it were me - I would request a big car as well)



Hi Dave - As an isolated incident, asking for a full-sized car doesn't mean much in the big scheme of things.  However, the point I was trying to make is that at the meeting where this was discussed, "Big Car Cummings," was far more interested in discussing his "need" for a big car, than he was in discussing the very serious issues before the board.  On those issues, he completely endorsed going along with Starwood's recommendations, no questions asked.  That was the attitude of 4 out of 5 members on the previous board - no matter what Starwood recommended, they agreed to it, and didn't even want to consider any alternatives.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 19, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Well. It seems to me that posting on TUG that some prefer one candidate over another really shouldn't be taken to mean that the Board should not choose one candidate over another, given the choice. My guess is that the Board wanted the candidates they wanted (as did Starwood) and they would have chosen them regardless of anything that was posted here, or anywhere else. On the other hand, threads like this really can't be all that positive for those at Starwood and I can surmise that they might be inclined to try to influence future similar posts. Sending a message that TUG contributed - if even just a little - to the decision that was reached on which candidate to appoint means, to me, that this forum has influence, even though it didn't go the way some wanted. It's too bad that those on the Board had to make the decision they did, but I assume they have good reasons for it. If one of those was truly that it was simply what 'TUG' didn't want, then I have absolutely no confidence in their decision making ability.



I am quite sure that Charles was elected BECAUSE of TUG members - the fact that the board chose to disregard that fact, is an entirely different matter.


----------



## Ken555 (Oct 19, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> I am quite sure that Charles was elected BECAUSE of TUG members - the fact that the board chose to disregard that fact, is an entirely different matter.



It's likely that TUG impacted the vote, but unfortunately Charles was not elected... He got the popular vote, but the electoral college (ie. the Board) decided otherwise.


----------



## jarta (Oct 19, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> I am quite sure that Charles was elected BECAUSE of TUG members - the fact that the board chose to disregard that fact, is an entirely different matter.



Actually (and you and Ken know this but want to spin it), Baron wasn't elected.  No ballots were voted because no quorum was present in person or by proxy and no business could be transacted at the owners meeting.  Baron was just not appointed to one of the 2 vacancies when the board meeting reconvened.

I've served on residential boards before.  I have voted to make appointments where vacancies existed.  My years of experience on the boards - and in life - tells me this:

You have less of a chance of appointing a wingnut   ...

by reappointing a person with 9 years of experience in helping you run a residential property with low assessments (at SDO the lowest MF/SO ratio in the SVO), who runs a $450M investment firm but wants a full size car for probably $5 more per day it is rented   ... 

than by appointing a guy who is not an experienced board member, but comes to and sits through every board meeting to demonstrate his concern at how bad a job you are doing.   Salty


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 19, 2012)

Post deleted per request by Charles Baron


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 19, 2012)

sptung - Besides my personal recommendation, there was a lot of info. posted by both myself and the board president indicating the need for change.  Tuggers are smart people - I'm sure they read that information, and made their own decision.  Unfortunately, the board chose to disregard the votes that were cast.


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 19, 2012)

Denise,
I got a message that Charles Baron had contacted my office which I suspected that you told him how to find me.  The message that I got was to delete all my postings regarding him.  Since I can only delete my current post, please edit out my previous postings about him in the other thread.

He said he was told that I must be a former Intel disgruntled employee, this is actually quite funny.  But I will abide by his request to delete my posts regarding him.

Thanks,
SP


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 19, 2012)

sptung - I don't know anything about Charles Barron contacting you.  In an earlier post, you wrote something about working for Intel - and you use your real name for your TUG user name.  Since you revealed that info. yourself, it would be a piece of cake to look you up through Intel. This is a public forum - anyone can read what you post here, including non-members.


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 19, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> sptung - I don't know anything about Charles Barron contacting you.  In an earlier post, you wrote something about working for Intel - and you use your real name for your TUG user name.  Since you revealed that info. yourself, it would be a piece of cake to look you up through Intel. This is a public forum - anyone can read what you post here, including non-members.



I have never said I worked for Intel, I simply said I am familiar with the structure there.  But regardless, I can't delete older posts so if you would per his request...


----------



## jarta (Oct 19, 2012)

DavidnRobin said:


> "Big Car" Cummings cracks me up - that is being penny-wise dollar-foolish (how much more per day is a big-car vs a smaller car - or anybody with membership already gets...???) about the overall situation at SDO.  and yes - I realize that it could somehow be a sign of not caring about the 'little' folks (except if it were me - I would request a big car as well)
> 
> be careful what you wish for - and now... apparently, be careful what you post - it may come back to haunt you.
> 
> ...



David,   ...   We don't often agree.  However, your rant makes sense.  But, it is not an "in the future" redistribution of wealth.  It's been happening at SDO for the last 4 years.

However, the redistribution is not from those walk away to Starwood.  The redistribution is from those who walk away to those who stay as owners.  (The rest of this post is for David and anyone else.)  

I believe those who stay at SDO are of 2 minds.  There are those who like to vacation at SDO and there are those who only own at SDO to trade elsewhere.  Those who vacation at SDO are generally not opposed to paying for the renovation.  Those who only own at SDO to trade elsewhere are generally opposed to paying for the renovation.  The trading benefit of SDO only generates value to them if SDO can produce a saving over the MFs of the places they want to trade to.  Any renovation must be paid for and that takes more money and higher MFs if the reserves are not sufficient to provide all of that money.

However, like any branded product, Starwood-branded timeshares are only valuable if the Starwood level of experience to users is maintained.  Starwood works very hard to sell a certain type of vacation experience.  The best way to think of and understand the SVO and SVN is as a franchise.  

The rule is "abide by the franchising standards or the franchise will be terminated."  Every branded franchise is designed to maintain the value of the franchise name - be it Best Western, Marriott, Four Seasons or Hyatt (or McDonald's or Pizza Hut or Subway).  Hotels and timeshares operate essentially the same way.  

The company with the branded franchise name provides a system of benefits and rewards associated with the brand and assumes management for the owners and to ensure that the experience associated with the name is protected and the name continues to drive business to the hotel or timeshare (through rentals to hotels and timeshares and, in the case of Starwood timeshares, through the SVN and II).

The board at SDO is caught between 3 rocks and a hard place.  The 3 rocks are:  1.  Starwood who refuses to let its brand be associated with lower standards; 2.  The owners who want to stay at a nice resort and are willing to pay the freight; and, 3.  The owners who don't care how well SDO is maintained because they will never go there anyway.

Add to that the ADA requirements to make the resorts available to visitors with disabilities and you realize what any board member is facing.

If the resort is not maintained very well, the persons who own to stay will be disappointed.

If the resort is maintained in violation of ADA rules and/or at a lower level than Starwood standards, Starwood will "pull the franchise" and the benefits of branded association will be lost for the resort and its owners.  No more SVN and lower II trading power.  (timeos thinks unbranded with self-management is the way to go.  I respect his opinion but I want greater flexibility and knowing what to expect where I go.  It's just me.  )

If maintenance is kept at a high level, reserves will be depleted and annual MFs will increase.  Those who bought merely for a financial advantage will have a tendancy to walk away.  Too many walking away means higher MFs for the owners who stay.  And, the cycle can spiral downward.

It's a fine line that the timeshare board must walk and good business judgment must be exercised by the board.  All these people serve for no compensation.  Merely blasting away at them because you think anyone opposed to them can do better is folly.  timeos is on a board that threw out managment and still thrives.  Others have thrown out management or switched affiliation and floundered with deterioration and regular increases in MFs.

I have no grand solutions beyond getting the best professional management, getting the best benefits from association and the best possible board members.  I feel Starwood provides the best management, the best associated benefits (in II and SVN and, for those who desire and are willing to pay, the ability to use SPG to great advantage) and seeks out the best possible board members.  However, Starwood is not infallible or perfect.  It can be arrogant and is an obsessive self-promoter.  And, even the best SVO boards sometimes make bad decisions.  But, overall, I am very satisfied with my Starwood ownerships.  SVO is not run by dummies and the resorts are well-run by competent and friendly staff.  The price of being in SVO is high, but (to me) the value is there.

If you really enjoy timesharing (and I do), think before you blast away.  You might get what you think you want and what you think you want might not be what, long term, you will be willing to accept.   Salty


----------



## gnorth16 (Oct 19, 2012)

jarta said:


> BTW, I still think that "may" means "shall" in the Arizona statute on quorums



IMO, may never means shall in any statue.  It leaves it ambiguous until at some point a precedent setting case changes the wording to shall.  Until then, it is discretionary. 

*Never book a full sized car.  Book a compact because they never have any availability when you get there.  They will "up-size" you for no charge.


----------



## jarta (Oct 19, 2012)

gnorth16 said:


> IMO, may never means shall in any statue.  It leaves it ambiguous until at some point a precedent setting case changes the wording to shall.  Until then, it is discretionary.
> 
> *Never book a full sized car.  Book a compact because they never have any availability when you get there.  They will "up-size" you for no charge.



http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/May

Sorry.  You are wrong.   Salty


----------



## Ken555 (Oct 20, 2012)

jarta said:


> by reappointing a person with 9 years of experience in helping you run a residential property with low assessments (at SDO the lowest MF/SO ratio in the SVO), who runs a $450M investment firm but wants a full size car for probably $5 more per day it is rented   ...
> 
> than by appointing a guy who is not an experienced board member, but comes to and sits through every board meeting to demonstrate his concern at how bad a job you are doing.



I actually agree with this. However, I'm still disappointed by the reported decision making process of seemingly simply approving Starwood's recommendation on improvements. Did he (and the rest of the board) investigate alternatives? See my earlier posts for more concerns along this line. I want qualified individuals on the board, but I want them to be independent and to not just accept whatever Starwood suggests - do you have any info that this is the case? If not, are you not also concerned about the potential this type of influence Starwood has on the board and it's decision making process?


----------



## gnorth16 (Oct 20, 2012)

jarta said:


> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/May
> 
> Sorry.  You are wrong.   Salty



"must be read in context to determine if  it means an act is optional or mandatory".

Different than may = shall.

My experience is limited to a property and contract law course I am taking now.  I think to full protect yourself, using "may" in context is a safeguard, however it does not imply that someone must.  The longer the course goes, the happier I am that I am not a lawyer....too much legalese.


----------



## jarta (Oct 20, 2012)

gnorth16 said:


> "must be read in context to determine if  it means an act is optional or mandatory".
> 
> Different than may = shall.
> 
> My experience is limited to a property and contract law course I am taking now.  I think to full protect yourself, using "may" in context is a safeguard, however it does not imply that someone must.  The longer the course goes, the happier I am that I am not a lawyer....too much legalese.



I guess I need to quote from the link I posted leading to a definition of "may" in a legal dictionary:



> may v. a choice to act or not, or a promise of a possibility, as distinguished from "shall" which makes it imperative. 2)* in statutes, and sometimes in contracts, the word "may" must be read in context to determine if it means an act is optional or mandatory*, for it may be an imperative. The same careful analysis must be made of the word "shall." Non-lawyers tend to see the word "may" and think they have a choice or are excused from complying with some statutory provision or regulation.



Unlike your limited experience, my experience is practicing law for over 40 years and arguing statutory construction issues to Federal and State Appellate and Supreme Courts.

My statement was made in the context of the entire statutory section on annual elections (ARS 33-2204), not just Subsection B in which "may" appears.  The entire section is clearly designed to provide orderly elections and protect voting rights.  IMO, the owners entitled to run for the board and their owner/supporters are the 3rd persons protected:



> (the statute uses "may" but I believe that in this case "may" means "shall" because the election rights of 3rd person owners are involved)



Salty


----------



## siesta (Oct 20, 2012)

gnorth16 said:


> IMO, may never means shall in any statue. It leaves it ambiguous until at some point a precedent setting case changes the wording to shall. Until then, it is discretionary.
> 
> My experience is limited to a property and contract law course I am taking now.


 you gave it a good try, for a canadian non-lawyer. 

But jarta has it right.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 20, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> I actually agree with this. However, I'm still disappointed by the reported decision making process of seemingly simply approving Starwood's recommendation on improvements. Did he (and the rest of the board) investigate alternatives? See my earlier posts for more concerns along this line. I want qualified individuals on the board, but I want them to be independent and to not just accept whatever Starwood suggests - do you have any info that this is the case? If not, are you not also concerned about the potential this type of influence Starwood has on the board and it's decision making process?



Ken - No alternatives were investigated or presented.  Starwood's recommendation was simply approved.  This was because the majority of the board had no interest in exploring other options, because they feel like they are obligated to go along with whatever Starwood recommends.

*That is my main concern!*

-I am NOT opposed to renovations
-I am NOT opposed to a reasonable fee to accomplish renovations
-I am NOT opposed to Starwood as the management company

*BUT I want independent board members to evaluate and make those decisions!*

Right now, Starwood controls the boards, by manipulating the election process, limiting the info. that is presented to board members, and by pre-empting any independent thought by board members, with overwhelming arguments about why the board must comply with Starwood's plans.

The Starwood boards are only in place to give a token appearance of complying with the law, and nothing more.


----------



## gnorth16 (Oct 20, 2012)

siesta said:


> you gave it a good try, for a canadian non-lawyer.
> 
> But jarta has it right.



Still not seeing it, except in how to approach it, not define it.  None the less, I am glad I am not a lawyer having to interpret what a term may or may not mean.  If something as little as "may" can confuse me to the nth degree, I would lose all my cases and get fired pretty fast!


----------



## jarta (Oct 20, 2012)

> -I am NOT opposed to renovations
> -I am NOT opposed to a reasonable fee to accomplish renovations
> -I am NOT opposed to Starwood as the management company
> 
> ...



The Starwood boards are in place to exercise their best judgment as to what's best for the resort.

OK, what's wrong with the renovation plan for 2013?  Why wasn't approving the Starwood recommendation what's best for the resort?  Give specifics beyond it couldn't be because the proposal was submitted by Starwood, the property manager.

If there had ever been a post about how you, an owner at SDO, had enjoyed visiting there ...

Or, if there had not been all those recommendations to buy at SDO merely because the MFs were the lowest ...

Or, if there had not been all that advice to buy at SDO merely to acquire inexpensive trading power in II to go to Hawaii ...

it might be believable that increased MFs due to the renovations has nothing to do with the schizophrenic statements quoted above.

Any word on whether the vote to approve was 5-0 or 4-1 or 3-2?    Salty


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 20, 2012)

jarta - A gentle reminder:  I have no intention of discussing this, or anything else,  with you.  However, I'm going to leave your angry post above, because it is quite enlightening.  Have a great day!


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Right now, Starwood controls the boards, by manipulating the election process, limiting the info. that is presented to board members, and by pre-empting any independent thought by board members, with overwhelming arguments about why the board must comply with Starwood's plans.
> 
> The Starwood boards are only in place to give a token appearance of complying with the law, and nothing more.



This sounds like WorldMark.  

Steve


----------



## jarta (Oct 20, 2012)

Steve said:


> This sounds like WorldMark.
> 
> Steve



Starwood is more like FSA (where both of us own) than Worldmark.     Salty


----------



## gnorth16 (Oct 20, 2012)

jarta said:


> The Starwood boards are in place to exercise their best judgment as to what's best for the resort.




Could it be that the "Starwood boards" are in place for the best interest in Starwood???   Could there be any chance that a non-controlled Starwood board could conveniently find its way out of the Starwood network?

No longer any vested interest, just curious.....


----------



## jarta (Oct 20, 2012)

gnorth16 said:


> Could it be that the "Starwood boards" are in place for the best interest in Starwood???



No.  IMO, the boards at Starwood resorts run the resorts for the best interest of the resorts.  I have been posting on TUG for several years.  Many unverified allegations have been posted about fraud by Starwood.  No evidence has ever been posted that the boards serve Starwood's interest rather than that of the resorts.  The MFs are high at SVO resorts; but the finish, amenities and service at most SVO resorts are very high.  That's due to the boards running the SVO resorts in the best interest of the resorts.



> Could there be any chance that a non-controlled Starwood board could conveniently find its way out of the Starwood network?



There's not only a chance; it happened last year.  VCC left; Starwood did not fight to have VCC stay; and the SVO survived.  Nobody at Starwood or in SVN shed a tear about VCC leaving.  It was Adios VCC.

SDO could leave, too.  The parting could be mutual or Starwood could be kicked out by a board or Starwood could pull out and SDO would be dropped from the SVO.  Whatever!  The same thing would happen.  The SVO would survive and SVN trading would be unaffected.  Adios SDO.

Very few members of the SVN would consider trading into SDO unless WKV is unavailable, they have no Starpoints to go to the Phoenician and they really, really have to be in Scottsdale for a week.  Why go to SDO when the same StarOptions will get you into WKV?  WKV does not need a renovation and there is nothing at SDO that isn't at WKV.  But there are lots of amenities at WKV that will never be possibilities for the landlocked SDO apartment complex.  (SDO can only survive as a timeshare resort only by sprucing itself up as much as possible.)



> No longer any vested interest, just curious.....



I hope this post satisfies your curiosity.   Salty


----------



## gnorth16 (Oct 21, 2012)

Thanks for the reply.

On the bright side, SDO is not leaving the SVN anytime soon.

Always interested in SDO since it is such a good trader.  There came a point that some TS's had to go and 3 of 4 were listed and the the SDO's got the call.  |When the part time schooling is done, I plan on buying another Starwood somewhere. (Very happy to be at WKV in February with my trade). I'm glad I don't have to dissect statues, because my brain can't handle them.

Any chance you can fix the NHL situation???  The lawyers involved seem to be getting nowhere!!!


----------



## Ken555 (Oct 21, 2012)

jarta said:


> No.  IMO, the boards at Starwood resorts run the resorts for the best interest of the resorts.  I have been posting on TUG for several years.  Many unverified allegations have been posted about fraud by Starwood.  No evidence has ever been posted that the boards serve Starwood's interest rather than that of the resorts.



I posted earlier if you knew the board reviewed options for the renovation plan. You haven't replied. Denise did, and said that the board did not review any options. If this is accurate, I once again ask you how you can believe the board did their duty to the owners? Please see my earlier posts about this issue and the questions I asked. If you don't reply, I can only surmise that you don't have the answers about what actually happened at the meetings (I certainly don't) and yet you still have faith in the board (I don't, in the absence of additional information supporting the notion that the board reviewed alternative plans than the proposal from Starwood). 

Until my questions about this issue are answered to my satisfaction, and if the answers are that the Board did not review other options, then I will assume that this is sufficient reason to suspect the Board serves Starwood and not the owners. 

I am certainly not disputing that SDO needs renovation (again, I haven't been there, but I believe everyone who posted saying it does). What I do not like is the manner in which the decision to approve renovations has been done.


----------



## jarta (Oct 21, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> I posted earlier if you knew the board reviewed options for the renovation plan. You haven't replied. Denise did, and said that the board did not review any options. If this is accurate, I once again ask you how you can believe the board did their duty to the owners? Please see my earlier posts about this issue and the questions I asked. If you don't reply, I can only surmise that you don't have the answers about what actually happened at the meetings (I certainly don't) and yet you still have faith in the board (I don't, in the absence of additional information supporting the notion that the board reviewed alternative plans than the proposal from Starwood).
> 
> Until my questions about this issue are answered to my satisfaction, and if the answers are that the Board did not review other options, then I will assume that this is sufficient reason to suspect the Board serves Starwood and not the owners.
> 
> I am certainly not disputing that SDO needs renovation (again, I haven't been there, but I believe everyone who posted saying it does). What I do not like is the manner in which the decision to approve renovations has been done.



The only person who has posted (who was there at the election) has posted 6 times on TUG.  He posted in December of 2011:



> I am on the board at SDO (Sheraton Desert Oasis) and our statistics are in alignment with Carolinian's comments; most owners do not exchange, they prefer to stay at their home resort instead.



http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1219316#post1219316

Son of a gun!  Those who own there stay there!  Guess there are not that many TUG members who own at SDO.

In May of this year he posted that the sky is not falling and that the $18M renovation would not require a special assessment and explained why.

http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1255231#post1255231   (and next post)

In September of this year he posted (as president of SDO) about the September decision to accelerate the renovations:



> 1. *In October (sic), the board approved a revised reserves plan to accelerate refurbishment of kitchens and baths to 2013 and 2014*. This work will be combined with the work required to bring us into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The current estimate is $17 million. We have $10 million in reserves. To cover the additional cost, maintenance fees were increased about 7% in 2012 and will increase over the next 2 years as follows: 12% (2013), 8% (2014). Then in 2015, there will be a 12% reduction in maintenance fees. *At this stage, we are obtaining competitive bids for review at our next board meeting October 17.*



http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1364395#post1364395

Obtaining competitive bids for October!  Is that clear.

Why do you think the acceleration occurred?  I think, from my experience on overseeing a multi-million dollar HOA renovation project, that it means that when preliminary work was done, greater deterioration was found behind the walls or appliances and things needed to be accelerated.

His only post after the October 17 meeting had no criticism of the cost of the renovation and no criticism of the way the board approved the renovation prior to the annual meeting.  He was concerned about how and why Baron was passed over for appointment to the board.  (I don't quarrel with the appointment, but I think it can only be a temporary appointment for 90 days.)

http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1374991#post1374991

Where does the only person who has posted and was at the meetings, have any fear of the renovation.  Didn't he say, when president of the SDO board, that competitive bids were being obtained?  Where did the ex-president say that no other bids were considered?

*But, I forgot!*  There is a person who surely was at the October 17 board meeting.  We all know who he is and who has been his noisy supporter for a board seat ever since the renovation was accelerated (which affected the draw down of the reserves).

Only that Baron supporter has posted that no other options were considered.  That may be so at the board meeting.  But, the board meeting is for the voting.  The review of bids goes on in workshops and conversations and discussion prior to the board meeting.

Sorry for so lengthy a post.  But, there was a lot of BS to clear up.  Salty


----------



## jarta (Oct 21, 2012)

And, I'm still waiting for some announcement of the board vote on the renovations.  5-0, 4-1 or 3-2?   Salty


----------



## jarta (Oct 21, 2012)

To clarify.  What the ex-president did disagree with his fellow board members about concerning the renovations was the acceleration of the renovations - not their cost.  That battle was fought out and he lost in September.

Then he posted on TUG a week after the September meeting that he preferred to have the competitive bids include options to be removed from the RFP that had already been approved in September.  His fellow board members disagreed.

The renovation disagreement at the board level was about a matter of timing of costs - not a matter of total costs and not about failing to seek competitive bids to verify the estimated total costs.  The project remained a $17-18M project.

The Starwood recommendation at the September meeting was about moving up the renovation work.  The Starwood recommendation at the October meeting was which of the competitive bids would best accomplish the RFP.  Giving such recommendations is exactly why the management company is hired.

The rest of the quote I referred to:



> *At this stage, we are obtaining competitive bids for review at our next board meeting October 17.* The project includes all new furniture, upgrade the lock-offs from queen to king beds, replace the 2-person Jacuzzis (we are told its hard to find parts) with standard 1-person Jacuzzis, replace the outdated Space Capsule tub/showers with modern tub/showers, replace the small refrigerators with standard size refrigerators, and much more. I have asked for bids to include options that we can select/deselect regarding the various upgrades to determine the cost impact. I am also concerned that we are asking current owners to foot the bill for future owners. This economy caused our delinquency rate to skyrocket and we have about 2,000 association-owned intervals to sell over the next year or two. It might be better to postpone the project until we have more owners to share in the cost. Our existing owners have been carrying the load of higher maintenance fees caused by delinquencies and it seems unfair to ask them to carry this $17 million load also. *Unfortunately, my fellow board members are happy to move forward with Starwood’s recommendation for this $17 million project right now, with little or no additional discussion*.



http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1364395#post1364395

There are reasons why when you are renovating bathrooms and kitchens you do it all at once.  If you lived there you would be concerned about living through piecemeal renovations of your bathroom or kitchen.  Just imagine your concerns if you needed to worry about providing available rooms for all those people who paid their assessments for 2 years rather than 1.   Salty


----------



## SkyBlueWaters (Nov 19, 2012)

gnorth16 said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> On the bright side, SDO is not leaving the SVN anytime soon.
> 
> ...



Hard to beat that appellate practice lawyer...statue? Lol.


----------

