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



## marksue

To all Marriott Ocean Club owners.  I am not sure if you are aware but you are about to be hit with 2 assessments that could be $1,000 for each of the next 2 years.  The reason is Marriott has to completely replace the roof and some of the supports due to poor construction.

How many of you realize that the building was bought by Marriott after it was partially completed?  Of course you were never told that.  Did you ever wonder why when ever it rained the building flooded?  It seems there were problems to the roof from day one and Marriott ignored the problems until they could get the owners to pay a portion of the repairs.  Marriott is requiring the Owners to pay a major portion of the repairs.  So therefore the roof repair and regular refurbishing projects will costs us additional funds over our already high maintenance.

I have been in touch with the board and have gotten the details of what is taking place.  A board member said to me if you find a lawyer who would like to take on a class action suit there would be many people who would be willing to be part of the suit.

I have been in touch with Marriott but they have refused to give me a satisfactory response except to agree to what I have mentioned here.

If you are unhappy about this you should contact customer care.  Maybe if enough people speak up Marriott will do the right thing.

Let me know if you are interested in pursuing a class action suit against Marriott.



Mark


----------



## lovearuba

*Somewhat interested*

Hi Mark
I would be interested if Allen Cohen the president of the owners association endorses this action.  I trust that he is looking out for our best interest.  I would love to see a class action suit related to the unfair way sales people market the timeshares and fail to disclose all of the rules of the program.  They only provide the positive side of the transactions and I am not naive but what they fail to disclose is an intentional omission.  I think the issue related to Marriott's unfair business practices  are much broader than just the roof at the ocean club. A class action suit to address all of the unfair practices would get a lot more attention and I'm sure there wouldnt be a problem getting folks to sign up.  My thoughts.


----------



## marksue

*Marriott Ocean Club Owners Being Ripped Off By Marriott - IF YOU ARE AN OWNER READ*

I actually spoke with Alan and he is the one that suggested getting people togehter and trying to find an attorney to start a class action.  I spent a great deal of time talking with him as well as calls into Marriott.  The roof and infrastructure is a major issue as the cost is in the multiple of millions to repair and it should all be covered by Marriott as the roof did not last as long as we were told it would.  I do not believe many people understand what this is going to cost them.

I am certainly open to your thoughts as well and if you know others that want to be part of a suit I have a contact that knows class action lawyers and I could speak with them.


----------



## dioxide45

What would a class action really do? If Marriott was to loose a class action suit, those costs would just be passed on to owners and Marriott customers. The cost and fees that the attorneys take will eat up much of the return. Other than gratification of winning, you will still have to pay for the repairs. The customer pays all costs that Marriott incures.


----------



## cp73

*Aruba or Maui?*

Is this Maui or Aruba your referring to? MOC??


----------



## thinze3

cp73 said:


> Is this Maui or Aruba your referring to? MOC??



I was just wondering the same thing, although I assumed he meant Aruba Ocean Club as OP appears to own Aruba Surf Club as well.  Hmmm?


Terry


----------



## thinze3

dioxide45 said:


> What would a class action really do? If Marriott was to loose a class action suit, those costs would just be passed on to owners and Marriott customers. The cost and fees that the attorneys take will eat up much of the return. Other than gratification of winning, you will still have to pay for the repairs. The customer pays all costs that Marriott incures.




I think it is the OP's intent to have *MVCI* pay for the roof which was known to be defective before many of the units were sold.


Terry


----------



## marksue

That is exactly right.  MVCI should be paying for the roof and structural repairs and not pass those costs on to the owners.  If they were to lose the suit they would not be able to pass those costs on to the owners. If they had done the apporpriate due dilligence when they bought the building then the roof would have been repiared prior to completion of the building.


----------



## lovearuba

*sign me up*

Sign me up Mark.  I'l send you a private message with my email. I also disagree that marriott would pass those fees for the lawsuit along to us.  There can be stipulations in the settlement that require Marriott to pay the attorney fees and not to pass certain costs along to the owners.  I do think there is merit to a larger lawsuit and I do think attorneys will be interested in it.


----------



## Zac495

I'm interested too. Let me know. 2000 in 2 years? Yikes!


----------



## dioxide45

marksue said:


> That is exactly right.  MVCI should be paying for the roof and structural repairs and not pass those costs on to the owners.  If they were to lose the suit they would not be able to pass those costs on to the owners. If they had done the apporpriate due dilligence when they bought the building then the roof would have been repiared prior to completion of the building.



The point I was trying to make was that while they may not directly pass those costs on to owners as a SA, those costs will and have to get passed on too all Marriott customers, and it's owners are also customers.


----------



## rthib

*Companies don't pay lawsuites (or taxes either)*

dioxide45 is right.
Besides making alot of money for some lawyers, all the lawsuit will do is raise the cost of Marriott Time Share maintenance for everyone.
Companies just pass along any costs to their customers. Those include lawsuit settlements and increases taxes.
Since Marriott gets a fee for managing the properties it will just raise the fee to cover the costs.

Class action lawsuits are rarely a monetary gain for anyone but the lawyers.


----------



## qlaval

The special assessment is for the ten year refurbishment not for redoing the roof...!?!

As for the roof:
_"The original building, when purchased by Marriott Vacation Club® International was a concrete structure with an existing roof. 
The original roof manufacturer is no longer in business so the original warranty is null and void. 
The roof must be replaced to protect the integrity of the building structure as well as the overall health of the building. 
The main roof is 14 years old this year. The Association, however, has only realized 10 years of the actual useful life of the roof. 
Marriott Vacation Club is paying the prorated cost of any years of life that the Association has not utilized. 
The roof repair is estimated to be $1.6 million of which Marriott Vacation Club will be responsible for 43% of the cost.
 The expected cost of the assessment to fund the roof replacement through the common area Reserve Fund will be approximately $90.00 per individual Owner."_


----------



## JimC

You may want to have your HOA open discussions with Marriott to attempt a negotiated resolution.  You might seek legal counsel simultaneously to better understand what legal remedies, if any, exist.

If you want to engage legal counsel, then do your homework to find law firms that have knowledge of the timeshare industry and a demonstrated record of getting *meaningful* results for clients.  Interview them.  Ask about your legal rights and options to resolve the issue.  

Litigation is expensive and time consuming.  If you seek litigation, make very sure you understand what that means in time and cost.  Ask about their retention agreements.


----------



## TheTimeTraveler

Another downside of litigation is that it could give this particular resort a black eye thereby potentially affecting it's market value (negative publicity).


----------



## Steve A

Qlaval's contribution clearly explains the roof issue. 

I see no problem and certainly no need for litigation. The current HOA has been extraordinarily vigilant in protecting owner's interests and I highly commend them.


----------



## marksue

Sorry for the delay for further postings. I want to let everyone know I will be posting additional information over the next week or so.  After being at the general meeting and hearing how the owners are being ripped off with over 30% increase for the maintenance and the assessment I am having further conversations regarding the class action suit.

A key question will be disclosure; did Marriott disclose to the attorney generals of all 50 states and numerous countries the status of the building they were purchasing?  How many of you bought knowing that Marriott was building over a poorly constructed shell, that is now going to cost the owners million of dollars to repair?  Included in this is the cost to owners to repair the damage to the ocean front rooms which were damaged by Omar.  I have heard over 200k do to the fact that Marriott did not properly maintain the building (more details to follow).

Also speaking with owners who attended the meeting a majority have decided it is time to sell their units.

Please stay tuned there will be more information posted as I put together all the info I have gathered from the meeting.

If you know other owners please share this with them and let’s start accumulating contact information.  I will be speaking to an attorney shortly and will post more data from him as well.


----------



## lovearuba

*I am still interested*

Hi
I also spoke with Allan on this and got the impression he wanted to try to work it out with Marriott first. If you email him he will respond and he will call you if you want to chat.  I did let him know if it ends up as a lawsuit he had my support.  Remember to sign up for the newsletter so Allan can keep you up to date. 

He was reluctant to post info on this website because it is monitored by Marriott and I imagine some of the positive input about Marriott is self reported.  To sign up for the newsletter go to 

www.arubaoceanclub.com


----------



## marksue

After attending the meeting and listening to the Marriott representative, I think his name was Dirk, it is quite obvious that things have not worked out in favor of the owners.  There were lots of questions concerning the poor condition of the building and why hasn't Marriott stepped up over the years to maintain the building and fix the problems.  Dirk's basic response was, and I am paraphrasing, this is wear and tear on the building and not a real issue.  Oh was it wear and tear that the roof only can support 20 lbs of pressure or that in some cases there was an inch of caulking or that the building was not built to be waterproof.  Come on Dirk lets get real and stop thinking we are all dummies. 

Listening to some of the board members speak and you realize they are Marriott mouth pieces, even thought they are supposed to represent us the owners.  Listening to the women speak about the finances was a joke, all she talked about was Marriott does this for the other timeshare property which she is president.  No one in that room cared about her other property we cared about the Ocean Club.

As an example and I haven’t put all my notes together yet, a question was asked regarding the roof issue, if this was a problem on day 1 why is it the owners have to pay about 60% of the costs, why doesn’t Marriott step up and pay for the entire thing.  THe response from the board is Marriott is giving us 1.7 million for the renovation.  So instead of paying for the entire roof as they really are, they are putting the money else where.  Ask yourself why not just say you are paying for the roof and stop the issue all together.  It is because if they paid for the roof they then admitted that they did not do the proper due diligence when the building was built and they would then have been responsible for all the other damage that owners are paying for over the years.

For me I bought because I trusted the Marriott name.  I know when they build something it is quality.  I no longer trust or have faith in Marriott based on their deception during the sales process and not being honest about the building.

Like I said there will be a great more about this meeting posted in the near future, but I do not believe that Marriott is acting fairly with the board and we the owners need to band together to ensure we get fair treatment.  The board is not going to fight for us the way we need them to.  They will be bullied by Marriott, if the owner speak up, we will be treated fairly.  If i felt we were being treated fairly I would not be spending my vacation time doing this.

Too bad you are not down here right now and listening to the anger in the pools as people talk about the Ocean Club.  Potential buyers are coming up to us and asking if they should buy in the Surf Club as they hear what is being said.  I know a few that decided not to buy based on what is going on with the Ocean Club and what it is now costing the owners.  Just so you know the maintenance of the 1 bedrooms is almost the same price as a 2 bedroom in the Surf Club.  And you thin Marriott is being fair, I don’t and neither do a lot of others.  That is why we will probably need to take this to court.


----------



## lovearuba

*we need more owner feedback*

I would love to see more owner feedback and if there is an email for us to contact people at Marriott I will send them some input.  

I am sorry your vacation is being hurt by this, was there any mention of Marriott trying to let Surf club folks use ocean club beach, that would make me sell.  Its the one advantage the ocean club has.


----------



## marksue

When there is beach space at the Ocean Club there is a charge for Surf club members to use it.  THere is a no sharing policy between the units.

The point here is to start getting the owners to get involved.  There is what i consider more disturbing news which will be posted here once 1 put all the info togehter concerning how Marriott is trying to control the Ocean Club board.  

When i get back i would be glad to speak directly with you.


----------



## AOC Board

*Notice to Ocean Club Owners*

Dear Fellow Aruba Ocean Club Owner:

The Board of Directors is writing you to address a very serious rumor that has recently appeared over the internet.  This untrue rumor concerns ongoing issues at the Ocean Club and the Board’s relationship with our management company – Marriott International.

It has been almost 10 years since the Ocean Club opened.  As with any high use resort facility located in the hot, humid Caribbean climate, the facility is starting to show signs of its age.  As a result, the need for maintenance and repairs has increased over the past several years.  While the Board has been faced with a number of challenges related to the aging facility, we have been primarily focused on the replacement of the existing roof.  As many of you know all to well, we experience leaks in many parts of the resort during heavy tropical rains. The roof replacement is needed to prevent water intrusion in and damage to the building.  We are pleased to report that the roof replacement is on schedule and should be complete in early December.  The Board also recognizes and thanks Marriott for contributing its fair share to the necessary repairs.

The Board has been working hand in hand with Marriott to resolve these and other related challenges.  In the past year, the relationship between the Board and Marriott has grown stronger because of a renewed sense of cooperation, mutual understanding and improved communications.

The false rumor found on some websites alleges that the relationship between the Board and Marriott has deteriorated to the point that the Board has suggested that owners consider pursuing a class action lawsuit against Marriott.

The Board categorically denies making any such inference.  The Board is working collaboratively with our on-site management team and with Marriott.  With the arrival of Corey Guest, our own dedicated General Manger, the Board has never been more confident in the staff’s ability to provide the owners the very best vacation experience possible while at the same time, effectively and efficiently managing our property.

The hard work is not yet done… especially with the challenges brought on by hurricane Omar.  However, the Board and Marriott are moving forward together to meet those challenges with a sense of mutual respect and cooperation.


----------



## lovearuba

*AOC Board*

To AOC Board

Post your name and your relationship to Marriott


----------



## lll1929

There is a 30% increase in Maint Fees this year?  Did they disclose the new amounts?  If so,  can you post this information.  I was prepared for the assessments for the next 2 years, but not for this drastic of an increase in Maint fees.


----------



## marksue

It is nice to see the AOC board posting here.  What you posted is on the AOC website and was mentioned in the meeting as well.  No one wants a lawsuit, but how else can we the owners be treated fairly unless we step up and let our voices be heard.  It is obvious to me that the owner’s best interests are not being taken in to account.  I do believe the fiduciary duties of a board are to protect the owners, then please step up and protect the owners.  I know the board has tried to get results, but Marriott is not supporting the owners and it appears to me telling the board to do it their way. It is great that the board did get 43% of the costs of the roof and about 1.6 million of other concessions but that is just a drop of the bucket in terms of the overall costs to the owners. WHy is it Marriott refuses to admit that the roof was defective?  Is it because thentehy would know they are responsible for all the following damage? In the meeting the board said they are still talking to Marriott, but at this time and listening to the Marriott representatives speak I doubt we the owners will be satisfied.


Let's get an accounting of all the costs of repairs, owners have had to pay for, since the AOC opened, due to the poor construction.  I have observed the leaking since I purchased in 1999.  Let Marriott then reimburse us for all those costs and I would bet we would be saving a tremendous amount of money.  Why is it 120 rooms are out of service due to Omar and the owners are paying for the damage?  The surf club lost a couple of rooms and that building was built by Marriott.  Seems to me we have not had proper maintanece on the Ocean Club building.

The increase in maintenance for a 2 bedroom in the surf club has gone up a reasonable amount from 1098 to around 1250, I don’t have the exact numbers.  Why should a 1 bedroom in the Ocean club go from 886 to 1198 and then the assessment on top of that?  That is a 35% increase.  Then the assessment is on top of that 540 for year 1 and 421 for year 2, for a 1 bedroom.

The 2 bedrooms are going from 1172 to 1616 and the assessment is 774 for year 1 and slightly less for year 2.

I can certainly appreciate some of the increase but this is outrageous.

Everything I have posted here is public information that Allan, Steve, Michele all spoke about at the meeting.  

I would love to stop these posts and be able to post Marriott has done right by us, but that will not happen until an equitable solution is reached.  Come on Marriott step up and do the right thing.  Right now you have so many upset people that the Marriott reputation is taking a major hit.


----------



## lll1929

marksue said:


> The increase in maintenance for a 2 bedroom in the surf club has gone up a reasonable amount from 1098 to around 1250, I don’t have the exact numbers.  Why should a 1 bedroom in the Ocean club go from 886 to 1198 and then the assessment on top of that?  That is a 35% increase.  Then the assessment is on top of that 540 for year 1 and 421 for year 2, for a 1 bedroom.
> 
> The 2 bedrooms are going from 1172 to 1616 and the assessment is 774 for year 1 and slightly less for year 2.
> 
> .



Boy, I can't believe the maint fee increase.  I would love to sell but in this market and with the assessments, no one is going to want to purchase.  I can't believe the fees are equal to if not more than Hawaii.


----------



## marksue

Lora,

Tell all owners you know about this site.  The more owners who express thier feelings here the more we may be able to get Marriott to listen and work with us.

If we don't do anything, no one will.


----------



## MOXJO7282

marksue said:


> The increase in maintenance for a 2 bedroom in the surf club has gone up a reasonable amount from 1098 to around 1250, I don’t have the exact numbers.



Not to change the subject, but I wll, this is not reasonable to me. 12+% increase is high. I was hoping for a 5% like NCV. I hate double digit increases.

Regards
Joe


----------



## lovearuba

*time to seriously considering selling*

Marriott should be ashamed of themselves.  I will be seriously thinking of selling far below Marriotts price but doubt that I will be able to do it given the market.  

Anyone who can refer me to a reputable selling agency let me know.  I've had enough of Marriott


----------



## marksue

That is a common comment I am hearing from other Owners.  They do not see the value in owning the units with the new costs and just want to sell thier units. 

 I think Marriott and the AOC board are totally blind to what is going on with the economy these days.  Don't they realize many people are struggling right now and by asking for a 100% increase from last year (maintanence and assesment) over last year becomes a real problem for many people.

It is amazing to hear the conversation in the pool about the dissatisfaction with Marriott and the Ocean Club.  

I found out a relative of a friend is a class action lawyer and I will be speaking with him when I return.  So it is looking like this effort can get off the ground sooner than later.

Please make sure you share this site with other owners.  We need to get more of them on here.


----------



## lovearuba

*frustrated*

HI
It is really unbelievable that we paid so much for one week in Aruba and now my maintenance is going to be about $2000.  I could rent one for close to that.  I recall the sales presentation and what a wonderful buy to get a Marriott Vacation ownership  I was told I could deposit it for points, they never told me the points wouldnt be enough for a week stay.  They told me I could give it to Marriott to rent  We tried that, they could not commit to renting it but would take it and we wouldnt know until they rented it that we would be getting anything for that week.  They even said they werent sure they would be able to rent it for the whole week.  So obviously rental options were not an option.  

All I wanted was a timeshare to go to once a year and pay a reasonable maintenance which we were also told would only go up a minimal amount when it does.  Special assessments were not part of the deal.

I know a lot of Marriott supporters will tell me that a lot of the negatives are included in the documentation in the fine print but is that the reputation that Marriott wanted.  We are really getting ripped off.   I would love someone to tell me what timeshare sales organizations are reputable.


----------



## JimC

lovearuba said:


> ...Anyone who can refer me to a reputable selling agency let me know.  I've had enough of Marriott




Seth Nock is very good and enjoys a stellar reputation.


----------



## jerseyfinn

Sorry to hear about the troubles at the Aruba resort.

I do not own at Aruba, but I can certainly relate to the angst any owner might feel in such a situation. But there's a lot of anonnomous posts here speaking in tongues of veracity & certitude. I strongly suggest that Aruba owners check out the owners section of the MVCI web site. As mentioned in a thread here, the BOD has issued a statement and it is located on the MVCI Aruba website.

Sorry to butt in, but if it were my resort, I'd want the facts and nothing else right now as you're talking some big money here at a time when folks are in a tough economy.

Good luck all.

Barry


----------



## m61376

Joe- have you gotten your SC 2009 MF's yet? I was wondering, because I haven't, so I was wondering if this increase was fact or assumption.


----------



## marksue

The fees are correct and the information I have posted is from the meeting.  You will be notified shortly of the fees.  I hope that they open their eyes and realize that the fees are outrageous and revise the fees, but I doubt they will.  I am in Aruba now and have attended the Ocean Club General meeting where the fees were revealed.  Everything I have posted is what was spoken about in the general meeting. 

I am an owner and I would have no reason to make any of this up.  I used to believe in Marriott and rave about the organization.  I don't know.  I just want to be treated fairly and our board is not representing us the way they should and Marriott is just sticking it to the owners.  If they do what is right I will praise them.  If they don't I am not going away.

Ask yourself why Marriott did not reveal the fact they bought a shell when people bought down here.  They sold you the units on Marriott’s name. Since the problems the Ocean club is having have been there since they opened why hasn’t MArriott fixed the problem prior, but instead waited for when they could tell you the roof outlived its life.  What are they hiding?


----------



## Zac495

What are the fees? You mentioned 2 assessments - are we really going to be hit with 2000 in assessments plus the maintenance fee this year? Is that a for sure?


----------



## marksue

Here are the actual numbers which were presented at the general meeting on on 1/29.

A 1 bedroom in the Ocean club will go from 886 to 1198 and then the assessment on top of that? That is a 35% increase. Then the assessment is 540 for year 1 and 421 for year 2, for a 1 bedroom.

The 2 bedrooms are going from 1172 to 1616 and the assessment is 774 for year 1 and slightly less for year 2.


----------



## LJGRASSO

*Marriott Aruba Ocean Club --- LOOKS LIKE TIME TO SELL !!!*

How does Marriott expect to keep shoving these charges down our throat with out most of us choking. We've been owners since 2000 & own 2 one bedroom units at the Ocean Club and 1 two bedroom unit at the Surf Club. Probably have to sell the 2 units at the Ocean Club and keep the Surf Club unit.

These maintenance fees have increaced to the point where it would be cheaper to persue other Resorts that not only cost less to purchase and have reasonable maintenance fees.

Let me know if any of my fellow resort owners feel this way? Or is it just me?


----------



## marksue

You are not alone.  I have spoken to quite a few owners and they all feel the same way.  

Hopefully a class action lawsuit will get Marriott to pay thier fair share and we can get our fees reduced.  I also think we need an independent oversight of the Ocean Club Board to ensure they represent the owners and not Marriott.

I am getting the names of more and more owners as I post to more and more Aruba and Marriott message boards.  I am so angry right now with the unfair treatment all us owners have gotten.

Listening to the board and the Marriott reps at the general meeting has increased that anger.  I wish Dirk's manager was at that meeting and had heard his holier than thou attitude to questions from owners.

If Marriott wants this to stop then step up and do what is right.


----------



## Steve

Based on what has happened at several other Marriott resorts...including Streamside at Vail, Spicebush, Swallowtail, and Kauai Beach Club...I think that your chances of getting Marriott to help foot the bill are slim.  In each of those cases, the owners got stuck with really high assessments...and in several cases the resorts left the Marriott system soon afterward.  Marriott does not have a good track record when it comes to issues like this.

Steve


----------



## ilene13

*Marriott Aruba Ocean Club Owners Being Ripped Off By Marriott*

The assessment is for the 10-yr refurbishment.  I own 3  weeks at the Aruba Ocean Club!!!


----------



## marksue

Yes the assesment is for the 10 year refurbishment.  But would the assement have been necessary if we the owners had not had to pay for all the repairs from the damage caused by the poor roof and lack of waterproofing of the building.

And how do you justify a 35% increase in the annual fee following last years almost 30% increase.


----------



## lll1929

I emailed both Allen and the new President requesting the Maint fee amounts and have not recieved a response from either.  

I have also talked to Allen regarding the speculations around the suit.  If anything transpires, I would like to be involved.  I don't think there will be great success in selling, due to economy so I may as well get ready to suck up the new cost.  I don't know if I would be happy about the seperation from the Marriott name.  That would be interesting to see how that happens, especially for those, like myself who are financing thru Marriott. 

I guess I will see what happens.


----------



## griffer331

My maitenance fee only increased 4% last year, from $805 to $837.

 I'm really concerned about this going to over $1000 next year as we own 2 weeks.  In all the correspondance from the board it sounded like the roof issue was under control.  Has something happened to make this a bigger problem or has the bord been in denial about how big a problem this really is?

It sure would help to get some information either from the board or Marriott.


----------



## marksue

Just so you are aware Allan has nothing to do with the the proposition for a class action suit, he never suggested it and as a board memeber would not be one to initiate the suit.  

I am suggesting and have exchanged comments with others around putting together a class action suit so.  I have stated in previous posts reasons for the proposed suit.  As i have also stated I would rather not take that route, but if Marriott remains in denial to the poor conditions of the Ocean Club, from day 1,  then it will be the only solution.


----------



## CT77

I am also an owner of 1 week / 2BR at AOC.  Additionally I own 2 weeks / 2BR at Maui Ocean Club.  It is unbelievable what is happening in Aruba.  Marriott needs to step up to the plate on this and do what's right.  If they don't then legal action is necessary.


----------



## marksue

I will add you to the list.  As soon as I speakw ith an attorney and we start this moving forward I will be in touch.

thanks


----------



## lovearuba

*A Good Way to Get Others Involved*

Find all the ocean club owners that are posting their units for sale, this will give you more contacts.  There are quite a few timeshares for sale on the owners website, wonder why? 

 I really love Aruba and love the location of the ocean club, the beach is so much better than the surf club.  

Marriott should just buy us all out and use the beach for the surf club folks, it might be enough to relieve some of the over crowding and go a long way in improving member satisfaction at these resorts.


----------



## marksue

What a great idea to reach out to those that are selling.  We should coordinate and reach out to all of them.  Let me know if you are willing to help. I will draft an email and we can send to all owners who are renting or selling. Can also go out to other rental websites and contact people that way. Thanls for the idea.


----------



## Zac495

LJGRASSO said:


> How does Marriott expect to keep shoving these charges down our throat with out most of us choking. We've been owners since 2000 & own 2 one bedroom units at the Ocean Club and 1 two bedroom unit at the Surf Club. Probably have to sell the 2 units at the Ocean Club and keep the Surf Club unit.
> 
> These maintenance fees have increaced to the point where it would be cheaper to persue other Resorts that not only cost less to purchase and have reasonable maintenance fees.
> 
> Let me know if any of my fellow resort owners feel this way? Or is it just me?



OH MY GOSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SELLING TIME 
Maybe I'll keep the Manor Club and sell this one instead.


----------



## Zac495

marksue said:


> I will add you to the list.  As soon as I speakw ith an attorney and we start this moving forward I will be in touch.
> 
> thanks



I think you have me on this list, correct?


----------



## autumn

I find Marksue's postings troublesome.  He tried to post these same comments on flyertalk and was told it was not a timeshare forum and to use tug instead.  He has already posted his one bedroom ocean club for resale.  That's fine, I have no issue with him selling, but I love my marriott timeshare, was informed many months ago about the special assessments with explanations as to why they were needed, spoke with alan directly who also explained the need for the repairs to keep the place in good condition.
  All the Marriott timeshare property assessments are going up this year, not just ours.  Talk of class action suits at this stage seem unreasonable and just trying to scare our tug members by someone who has just found our site.  I will be visiting the Ocean club this week and am looking forward to my home away from home. There needs to be a lot more communicating before lawyers are brought into this discussion.  By the way, my husband is an attorney.


----------



## timeos2

*No surprise*

All this should come as no surprise. This is the Marriott t/s approach. Get big $ upfront, insist on total control, let the resorts slide, demand owners pay their price to fix it up  or they walk away. Impede owners rights with ROFR when it suits them. Drop it when it could have benefited owners. Nothing new. The fact that so many owners still think Marriott looks out for THEM is the real surprise to me.


----------



## Eric

Now that you have unmasked them, I am sure sales will drop. 




timeos2 said:


> All this should come as no surprise. This is the Marriott t/s approach. Get big $ upfront, insist on total control, let the resorts slide, demand owners pay their price to fix it up  or they walk away. Impede owners rights with ROR when it suits them. Drop it when it could have benefited owners. Nothing new. The fact that so many owners still think Marriott looks out for THEM is the real surprise to me.


----------



## LJGRASSO

autumn said:


> I find Marksue's postings troublesome.  He tried to post these same comments on flyertalk and was told it was not a timeshare forum and to use tug instead.  He has already posted his one bedroom ocean club for resale.  That's fine, I have no issue with him selling, but I love my marriott timeshare, was informed many months ago about the special assessments with explanations as to why they were needed, spoke with alan directly who also explained the need for the repairs to keep the place in good condition.
> All the Marriott timeshare property assessments are going up this year, not just ours.  Talk of class action suits at this stage seem unreasonable and just trying to scare our tug members by someone who has just found our site.  I will be visiting the Ocean club this week and am looking forward to my home away from home. There needs to be a lot more communicating before lawyers are brought into this discussion.  By the way, my husband is an attorney.


In regards to Marksue's comments that your troubled with please realize that he like myself love the resort. The problem is one needs to stand up for one self or get rolled over by the Marriott Machine. Just because we all love Aruba and being at the Ocean Club doesn't mean we all should turn the other cheek & let Marriott slap us around. Don't be blinded by your love for the Aruba Ocean Club and roll over.


----------



## marksue

I do like the Ocean Club and wish I didn’t have to do these posts.  But as mentioned by the Ljgrasso, we need to stand up to Marriott as they take advantage of us owners.  I love Aruba and just back from Aruba 30 mins ago.  If we the owners don’t speak up Marriott and the board will think they can keep screwing us every year.

Autumn, does your husband do class action suits?  As for assessments the Surf Club has no assessments, as I own there as well.  The Surf Club annual fees went up just over 10%, the Ocean Club 35%.  Too bad you weren’t at the annual meeting.  Owners tried to have a dialogue with Marriott but, were talked down to, there questions were not answered or they were told if you don’t like it sell your units. Even our treasurer talked down to owners.  

Why do you think we are spending so much on repairs?  It is because the building was not built properly to start with.  The roof was defective, the building was not waterproof and we have been paying for this since day 1. Just think how much money we could have saved with a building that was up to the standards that we thought Marriott provided. 

I will continue to post on all boards I can find.  And I am trying to rent or sell 1 of my 2 units at the Ocean Club due to the costs. Do I want to sell, no I don’t, but don’t have much of a choice due to Marriott’s taking advantage of us owners. At this time the Surf Club is a much better value then the Ocean club.  Over the next 2 years, my annual cost for my 2 bedroom unit in the surf club is lower than the annual costs for my 1 bedroom in the Ocean Club.

I am hoping Marriott stops taking advantage of us owners.


----------



## Retired to Travel

MarkSue--
I can only assume that your name is Mark and that you like to SUE people (dear "guest".)  We are happy MAO owners; please sell if you like and then leave us alone.


----------



## marksue

Retired, I am glad you are enjoying.  I enjoy it as well but want to be treated fairly by Marriott.  I respect your feelings, but I will not stop fighting until thier is fair treatment by Marriott, for ALL owners.


----------



## concernedowner

*Aruba Ocean Club*

As an owner of both the Surf Club and Ocean Club, I must admit that my preference is with the Ocean Club.  As an owner for seven years, I feel like I am returning home when I get to the Ocean Club.  Over the last few years, I have noticed that maintenance appears to be slipping and am shocked that my maintenance fees are increasing so significantly.  I have also noticed that the staff is not as accomodating as they used to be.
I think we owe it to ourseleves to attempt a reasonable attempt at negotiations before initiating a lawsuit.  I do not want a negative perception attached to my Aruba property.  Let's try to work with our elected board memebers to reach an end product that will benifit us and not alienate Marriott. 
We should know what we are dealing with (costs, deficiencies, etc) before we start screaming lawsuit.


----------



## marksue

As I have stated I would prefer to not have a law suit.  My understanding is discussions ont his issue have been going on for quite sometime, without what I would consider a satisfactory resposne from Marriott.  I have called Marriott directly with no response.

Having attended the general meeting, it was quite obvious our board is not fighting as they should and the Marriott representitives talked down to the owners.  You really needed to be at the meeting.  WHy did the majority of the owners walk out of there angry.  I spoke to many after the meeting so I know how angry they were.


----------



## Zac495

Exactly. I am torn. Part of me wants to just sell it and get out from the maintenance fees. i realize I would pay them this year - and the assessment.  Seems that with the increases, we may be better off renting. That said, Aruba does lock off. But you take the maintenance fee + lock off fee + II fee + trade fee - you're at almost 2000 dollars now. So yes, I realize I'd probably get an AC and 2 trades, but for 2000?  

Marriott is screwing us. First the points, now this!


----------



## lovearuba

*Marriott Vacation Club Rating from Better Business*

BBB Reliability Report for
Marriott Vacation Club International


This is not a BBB accredited business.
BBB Rating Unsatisfactory
Details...  

BBB issues Reliability Reports on all businesses, whether or not they are BBB accredited. If a business is a BBB Accredited Business, it is stated in this report.
  Find out more about this business:Reported on Monday, November 3, 2008 5:18 PM

Customer Experience 
Business Contact and Profile 
Additional Locations and Phone Numbers 
Licensing 
Customer Complaint History 
BBB Program 
Products and Services 
Alternate Business Names 
Government Actions 
Advertising Review 
Additional Information 
Customer ExperienceBack To Top Based on BBB files, this company has an unsatisfactory record with the BBB due to unanswered complaint(s). 

http://www.orlando.bbb.org/newsearch2.asp?ComID=073300202116


----------



## marksue

I spoke to an attorney friend of mine today and he is setting up a meeting with a class action attorney.  I also want to thank those of you who have sent the private messages with support as well as names of class action lawyers they have dealt with in the past.

I will tell you even though a few posts here have been pro Marriott, proabably Marriott employees, the overwhelming response has been fantastic.  

There is also an email that is going to be going out to all owners who are renting or selling their units on the Ocean Club site.  Please keep spreading the word on this site and lets get more Marriott owners invovled.

I was just out at the Ocean Club Website and noticed all board members have removed thier email addresses from the site.  As soon as i can get a hold of those email adddresses I will psot them here.  You have to wonder why they removed thier email address from the site.  Are they getting too many emails from upset owners?


Stayed tuend for more information


----------



## Dave M

marksue said:


> I will tell you even though a few posts here have been pro Marriott, *proabably Marriott employees*...


Probably not. I think  you lose credibility when you make such an unsubstantiated accusation, as it's really insulting to those of us who are pro-Marriott. You haven't been around here long enough to recognize that we do a pretty good job of unmasking Marriott employees when they occasionally post here as though they aren't employees. 

Further, although you might find it difficult to believe, the majority of those who post on this forum have been pro-Marriott. See, for example, this unscientific poll, located at the top of the list of topics.

Although it appears you are spearheading a worthwhile cause for some Marriott owners, please don't denigrate others who post here.


----------



## marksue

Dave,

My apologies.  No disrespect was intended.  I am sure there are many pro Marriott people.  Up until this situation I was also pro Marriott.


----------



## marksue

THe board has been telling us they have a good working relationship with Marriott.  If this is the case why then on Jan 14 2008 did they threaten to take Marriott to court and even hired a firm in Aruba.

Attached is the resolution that the board posted on the Ocean Club website.


* Resolution of the Board of Marriott Vacation Club International of  
Aruba Cooperative Association adopted by majority vote cast during a  
meeting held by telephone conference on January 14, 2008
============================================== * 
The Board of the Marriott Vacation Club International of Aruba  
Cooperative Association, hereinafter referred to as the Coop, in a  
meeting convened by the President and held by telephone conference on  
January 14, 20008, with the participation of the majority of the  
Members of the Board constituting a quorum for the adoption of valid  
resolutions in a meeting;

Whereas, the term “Marriott Affiliated Parties” shall mean: Marriott  
Vacation Club International of Aruba N.V., the Developer of the Aruba  
Ocean Club (“AOC”), Marriott Resorts Hospitality of   Aruba N.V., the  
Manager of the AOC, and Marriott Aruba N.V., the entity which has been  
contracted by the Manager to actually manage the AOC;

Whereas, the Board has made several attempts to commence a dialog with  
the Marriott Affiliated Parties to obtain a satisfactory resolutions  
with respect to the issues being discussed in this instrument, but the  
Marriott Affiliated Parties have either refused to enter into such  
dialog or refused to recognize the unalienable rights of the Coop;

Whereas, the President presented the following issues which need to be  
resolved and with respect to which the Marriott Affiliated Parties are  
posturing the refusals described in the preceding paragraph:

(i)                 Register of Members of the Coop: The Coop, as  
represented by the Board, is entitled to obtain full access to and  
possession of a complete current and updated register of members of the  
Coop containing each member’s full names, home addresses, email  
addresses;
(ii)                Defective building: The Coop, as represented by the  
Board, establishes that it has been delivered a defective building by  
the Marriott Affiliated Parties. The Coop holds the opinion that the  
Marriott Affiliated Parties are liable for the costs and expenses  
incurred or to be incurred by the Coop in connection with the  
replacement of the metal roof, resolution of flooding occurrences, and  
the scheduled replacement of windows and the flat roof;
(iii)              S&M Desks in the AOC Lobby: The Coop is entitled to  
receive a monetary consideration for the past, current and future  
installation and operations of the numerous S&M Desks operated by the  
Marriott Affiliated Parties, such without prejudice to the right of the  
Coop to exercise its right to terminate, in whole or in part, as the  
case may be, the installation and operations of such S&M Desks in the  
AOC Lobby;
(iv)              Lobby Desk Space Rentals: The Coop is entitled to all  
income derived from the grant by the Marriott Affiliated Parties of  
concessions and licenses to persons or entities to provide facilities  
and services to and within the AOC;
(v)               Storage Facilities on AOC’s property: The Coop is  
entitled to storage fee in virtue of the fact that the Marriott  
Affiliated Parties are using facilities on AOC property for storage  
purposes not related to AOC, such without prejudice to the right of the  
Coop to terminate such storage use;
(vi)              Commercial Space Liability: The Coop, as represented  
by the Board, disputes that it should share in the payment of repairs  
and maintenance with respect to the Commercial Spaces owned, controlled  
and operated by the Marriott Affiliated Parties for commercial purposes  
for their sole benefit. As such, the ratio 88/12 being applied  
unilaterally and without any explanation by the Marriott Affiliated  
Parties with respect to the allocation of the costs pertaining to the  
repair of the roof of Commercial Spaces, is unacceptable;
(vii)            Breach of security duties and lack of response: The  
Coop, as represented by the Board, cannot but conclude that the  
Marriott Affiliated Parties have seriously breached their duties with  
respect to the security of AOC as the same room has been robbed six  
times in less than 12 months. The response by the Marriott Affiliated  
Parties in this respect was totally inadequate. The Coop holds the  
Marriott Affiliated Parties liable for loss and damages suffered in  
consequence of the breach of security duties;
(viii)           Management Fee Structure: The Coop, as represented by  
the Board, holds the opinion that  the application and implementation  
by the Marriott Affiliated Parties of the current Management Fee  
structure is in violation of the terms of the applicable contract.
(ix)              Election process: The Coop, as represented by the  
Board, holds that the exclusion by the Marriott Affiliated Parties of  
the Coop from the voting and election process preceding, during and  
subsequent to general meetings of members violates the applicable  
provisions of the Governing Documents of the Coop;
(x)               Restriction autonomous power of Coop: The Coop, as  
represented by the Board, believes that article 5.7 of the Construction  
and Use Agreement, which provides, in short,  that articles of  
association and bylaws of the Coop cannot be amended without the prior  
consent of MVCIA if any such amendment would have an adverse impact on  
MVCIA’s interests, is invalid and unenforceable;

Whereas, the President proposes to give the Marriott Affiliated Parties  
until the Board meeting of January 28, 2008, the time to resolve the  
foregoing issues in a manner satisfactory to the Board;

Whereas, the President proposes for the Coop to engage the law firms of  
Aruba attorneys David G. Kock and Antonio A.D.A.. Carlo to immediately  
commence the pertinent legal proceedings, be it in summary or ordinary  
proceedings, as the case may be, against the Marriott Affiliated  
Parties before the Aruba First Instance Court to obtain a final  
judicial resolution of the foregoing issues if the Marriott Affiliated  
Parties fail to provide the final resolutions as provided for in the  
preceding paragraph of this resolution;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board does hereby approve the  
proposal to give the Marriott Affiliated Parties a last chance to  
resolve the issues contained in this resolution in a manner  
satisfactory for the Board on or before January 28, 2008, the date on  
which the Board shall hold a meeting in Aruba; and

             BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Marriott  
Affiliated Parties fail to finally resolve the issues as provided for  
in the preceding paragraph of this resolution, it shall be proposed in  
the meeting of the Board on January 28, 2008, to authorize and consent  
to the engagement of the law firms of Aruba attorneys David G. Kock and  
Antonio A.D.A. Carlo with the authorization and instruction to  
immediately initiate legal actions in the name and for the account of  
the Coop, be it in summary or ordinary proceedings, as the case may be,  
against one or all of the Marriott Affiliated Parties before the Aruba  
First Instance Court to obtain a final judicial resolution with respect  
to the issues contained in this resolution or any issue the  
aforementioned attorneys deem necessary and pertinent;


These resolutions may be signed in one or more original or fax copy  
counterparts, each such counterpart being deemed an original but all of  
such counterparts together being deemed a single instrument.

WHEREOF, the undersigned, being all of the members of the Board who  
voted affirmatively to adopted these resolutions, have executed this  
instrument as of the 14 day of January, 2008.


----------



## OCsun

*My two cents worth!*

I am currently at the Marriott Ocean Club and while I am enjoying my stay and was willing to pay the two year assessment - the hugh increase in annual maintenance fees is more than I want to take on.  I will check with Marriott, while I am here, regarding selling my unit.  Sorry TUGGERS who love their units!  I have a problem with Marriott on these issues.

One of my other timeshare units, the Westin St. John, is making special assessments for the next three years to replace the kitchens and bathrooms.  I need to make a decision which timeshare is a better investment both from a financial and personal enjoyment level.
WSJ wins!


----------



## Zac495

OCsun said:


> I am currently at the Marriott Ocean Club and while I am enjoying my stay and was willing to pay the two year assessment - the hugh increase in annual maintenance fees is more than I want to take on.  I will check with Marriott, while I am here, regarding selling my unit.  Sorry TUGGERS who love their units!  I have a problem with Marriott on these issues.
> 
> One of my other timeshare units, the Westin St. John, is making special assessments for the next three years to replace the kitchens and bathrooms.  I need to make a decision which timeshare is a better investment both from a financial and personal enjoyment level.
> WSJ wins!



Marriott said they're not buying back Ocean Club at this time. They said they have enough inventory. 

As much as I hate this, Seth Nock said they're selling low- lower than I bought it for (and I bought it resale). I'm thinking of waiting even though we'll pay the fees to sell.

If priced right, hopefully we can rent to cover the costs. Very frustrating.


----------



## marksue

If Marriott has too much inventory, then you know that there is a problem, considering the building is sold out and this is all resales.  When I was inthe sales presentation last week, the sales person said if a 1 bedroom is turned in they would have it sold in a few days.  

I think Marriott needs to get thier stories too match.


----------



## Pens_Fan

The salespeople rarely tell the truth.

We were there in July and our saleswoman told us that the economy wasn't hurting their sales at all.  In fact, they were doing quite well.

I took my 15,000 points, my set of towels and told her if I bought another timeshare it would be resale.


----------



## marksue

Since the board members have taken thier email addresses off of the AOC website, an owner sent me the email address of the new president..  As I get the additional email addresses i will post them as well.

[_Edited to delete unauthorized e-mail address. Such addresses should not be posted here without the address owner's permission, in part due to spamming considerations._ Dave M, BBS Moderator]



I have sent the link to this thread to timeshare today www.tstoday.com


----------



## lovearuba

*new president*

Hi Mark
I did have the email for the new president and sent him an email last week when all of this was going on and I got no response.  I am not surprised.

Dave, I understand your editing Marks message and removing the email address, it really should be public knowledge since it was on the ocean club website but policy is policy and ocean club owners can get it if they need it. 

Sounds like the new president is hiding.


----------



## marksue

I understand Dave having to remove Frank's email address.  I have the email address for most of the board.  Anyone who is intersted in thier email addresses please send me a private message and I will forward it along.


----------



## OCsun

*I spoke with Corey Guest yesterday evening.*

Owners gathered yesterday for cocktails with the General Manager and staff here at the Ocean Club.  I was able to get some time with Corey Guest to bring up some of the concerns listed here on TUG.

-The special assessment is being used to fund complete remodeling of the units bathrooms and kitchens.  The unit renovations will take place between June and November 2009.  Marriott will front the money until both 2009 and 2010 assessments are collected.
- The roof situation, is another expense which was the result of a 20 year roof lasting 10 years and the annual maintenance fees not yet establishing enough reserve money to cover the replacement.  Marriott is covering 43% of the replacement cost and the owners association will be covering 57%.  
- Maintenance fees rising are the result of utilities up 40%+, rising cost of water, expense charged by credit card companies since most members now charge their annual maintenance fees rather than send a check.  Last but not least Marriott's management fees - he did not elaborate regarding how much they are rising.  

*Pam's Commentary *- Mr. Guest said that the material originally used for the roof was the best at the time and new products are now much better.  I guess we would need to prove that Marriott knowingly used poor quality material.  We did get 10+ years use out of the current roof, so I am not sure how we can expect them to pay more than 43%.  I did express my concern regarding the management being able to properly set aside reserves for capital expenditures.
I also questioned the need to remodel the units.  The kitchen looks great to me and the bathroom is a little dated but in no way needs to be replaced.  Mr. Guest expressed that my opinion was in the minority since he receives many complaints regarding the kitchen cabinets.  
In conclusion, they (Marriott Management and the HOA) decided to just come in and correct everything at once.  

I really do not mind paying a one time assessment to correct and upgrade the roof.  I do not think the bathrooms or the kitchens need to be replaced or upgraded.  I am concerned about such a huge increase in the annual maintenance fees.  Has the previous management done a poor job of determining the real costs associated with maintaining Ocean Club?  If so, why are we paying Marriott any management fees much less increasing them?  Would we be better off breaking away from Marriott all together?  If not, show us why our expenses must rise 35% in one year.  I hope this information is helpful to those who were in the dark about this situation, as I was.  Pam


----------



## marksue

Pam,

I agree with everything you are saying.  What MArriott or the board is refusing to address is the fact that the roof and windows have all leaked since day 1 and the owners pay for all the repairs caused by these issues.  If we did not have to pay all that we wouldnt be in the situation we are in today.

We the owners are paying 200k to fix the rooms becuase of Omar.  This should be Marriotts costs due to the poorly prepared building they purchased.


----------



## pianodinosaur

I own TSs in Orlando.  There has been hurricane damage on several occasions but Hilton has not clobbered us with massive MF increases.  If there was hurricane damage to Hilton TSs in Orlando there must have been some to the Marriott TSs in Orlando. Perhaps some of you Marriott owners in Aruba also own in Orlando.  Were there massive MF increases after hurricane damage in Orlando?  Would a Tsunami in Hawaii result in massive MF increases? I think this issue affects all of us who own timeshares.


----------



## marksue

I was just out at the Ocean Club website.  It looks like the board has now removed all documents, meeting minutes, and other documents owners have legal access to.  They were there the other day and now they are gone.

What is this board afraid of?  It certainly seems like they are not in the owners corner.  Did Marriott tell them to remove the documents?  As owners we should have rights to all public notices.  

I understand from the board meeting the owners paid for a consultant to look over the roof, why not share that report with the owners?  What is the board and Marriott afraid of.

I have to tell you this behavior by our board lends me to wonder if there is a way we can recall the board members.  I am going to read the details of the bylaws to see if there is a way to recall the members and get owner friendly members on the board.

If anyone knows if this is possible please reply to this thread.


----------



## marksue

I received an email this morning from an owner asking what we the owners are looking for.  I am going to layout what I consider to be our issues.  All numbers posted here were supplied at the annual meeting

1)	Marriott did not disclose that the building was not a Marriott built building but a building they purchased from a bankrupt company
2)	It seems obvious that Marriott did not due the proper due diligence on the building or when they finished the building they did not do a quality job, as the building was not waterproofed, as there were leaks from the windows and roof since day 1 thus resulting in constant repair costs including 200k from Omar
3)	Did they or the bankrupt company put on a metal roof, (and who puts on a metal roof in the Caribbean) which was replaced a few years ago which the owners had to pay a portion of the cost
4)	The cost to repair the roof is 1.6 m,  Marriott is paying 43% of that cost or about 688k
5)	Marriott is also giving an additional 1.9 million through waived fees and money float
6)	The cost to the owners is 900k for the roof
7)	Omar is costing us 200k
8)	To waterproof the building is costing us 750k
9)	There was additional work outside the refurbishment of about 300 – 500k
10)	That is a total cost of about 2.3 million
11)	What is not know is how much have we the owners paid for the repair work due to the constant leaking and flooding since Marriott opened the doors to the Ocean Club.  I would guess in the 1.5 – 3 million range. This does not include wear and tear maintenance costs which we are responsible. 
12)	 So we could say the owners have about $5 million 
13)	There are a total of 11,118 weeks sold (51 weeks x 218 rooms).  This comes out to just about $450 an owner in operating costs we should not have paid for.
14)	So if you are asking me what I want, I want Marriott to pay the $450 that we now have to pay in our maintenance costs, which would bring our annual costs more inline to wear it should be.
15)	Another item which needs to be investigated is to see if over the years Marriott has been paying their fair costs for the space taken up by the sales office and desks of the outside companies.  As an owner I asked for and have yet to receive a full accounting and comparison of fair market costs over the years.  How much more is due the owners is unknown.

MARRIOTT AND THE OCEAN CLUB BOARD DO RIGHT BY THE OWNERS, DON’T RAPE US WITH THESE OUTRAGIOUS CHARGES.  WE WILL NOT SIT STILL FOR IT.  THE FIGHT WILL CONTINUE UNTIL WE ARE TREATED FAIRLY.


----------



## Dave M

Zac495 said:
			
		

> Marriott said they're not buying back Ocean Club at this time. They said they have enough inventory.


...and...





			
				marksue said:
			
		

> If Marriott has too much inventory, then you know that there is a problem....


One of my internal Marriott sources states that Marriott is not currently buying back *any* weeks at any resorts. It has nothing to do with Ocean Club.


----------



## thinze3

Dave M said:


> ...and...One of my internal Marriott sources states that Marriott is not currently buying back *any* weeks at any resorts. It has nothing to do with Ocean Club.




My saleperson at Intervalmax (an eBay resale company) just assured me again this morning that Marriott has not executed a ROFR with them in months and that the response time for waivers is now only days.

We can probably assume that the credit crunch is in play here somewhat.


----------



## Steve

Dave M said:


> ...and...One of my internal Marriott sources states that Marriott is not currently buying back *any* weeks at any resorts. It has nothing to do with Ocean Club.



Is the issue that Marriott isn't buying back weeks (for trade or "upgrade" for another, higher priced week purchase in another Marriott resort)?  Or is it that Marriott is no longer accepting listings where they will sell your ownership for you at their current prices for a 40% commission?  

If Marriott is no longer accepting listings of resale weeks at any resorts, then this is a very recent change.

Steve


----------



## lovearuba

*Marriott buying back weeks*

We spoke to them a couple of days ago and they said they would put our unit on their list so the information is not consistent. What else is new?


----------



## regatta333

pianodinosaur said:


> I own TSs in Orlando.  There has been hurricane damage on several occasions but Hilton has not clobbered us with massive MF increases.  If there was hurricane damage to Hilton TSs in Orlando there must have been some to the Marriott TSs in Orlando. Perhaps some of you Marriott owners in Aruba also own in Orlando.  Were there massive MF increases after hurricane damage in Orlando?  Would a Tsunami in Hawaii result in massive MF increases? I think this issue affects all of us who own timeshares.



Why wouldn't hurricane damage be covered by insurance?


----------



## gmarine

regatta333 said:


> Why wouldn't hurricane damage be covered by insurance?



It is but the deductable can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.


----------



## OCsun

I just completed a meeting with one of the Sales Representatives and he said that they would be happy to take my one bedroom ocean front unit as a resale.  He quoted $19,000 as the price they would sell it for before commission.   Maybe it is because there are only 12 ocean front one bedroom units in the building *or* maybe he is mis-informed!    Since dear hubby loves this ocean front unit, we have not pursued that option yet - so time will tell.  Pam


----------



## thinze3

I think there is some confusion going on here.

When Dave mentioned that Marriott is not buying back units at this time, he did NOT say that Marriott would not put your unit on a list for resale. I believe he meant that Marriott is not buying direct or executing ROFR for the simple purpose of holding inventory.

I too put one of my units on the resale list two weeks ago Most likely that unit won't actually sale for a very long time as the resort is not quite sold out. Marriott did not offer to buy it.

Terry


----------



## lll1929

I spoke with Allen today.  He is on the board but no longer the president so he didn't have many answers.  He did mention the increase in the Maint Fees.  

I am still very disappointed in the new Board (President).  I don't think its right to remove all documents off the website as well as the contact information.  

I too wonder what the Board is trying to hide.


----------



## pianodinosaur

gmarine & regatta333:

You raised good points. Why wouldn't the problems at Aruba Ocean Club be handled by insurance?  Why is all this cost being passed on to the TS owners instead of the general partner, Marriott?


----------



## Dave M

Steve said:


> If Marriott is no longer accepting listings of resale weeks at any resorts, then this is a very recent change.


My statement intentionally did not address whether Marriott would accept listings. My comment addressed only Marriott buybacks (e.g., exercising ROFR).


----------



## lovearuba

*Lets do the math*

Hey owners:
Why dont we figure out what it actually cost for maintenance.  There are at least 311 rooms per Marriotts Hotel facts sheet for the ocean club.  Lets divide that number by two and we get 155 units, 2 bedroom units. I know this is an approximation but its the simplest way I can figure it out.

Now since I've judiciously made these two bedroom units by my calculation, lets multiply that by the maintenance for a two bedroom, last year that was approximately $1100.00  Going up to $1600 in 2009, so I've heard, this does not include the special assessment. 

Multiply either one of the mainenance fees by 50 weeks because we only get one week for our usage and I am not using 52 because I'm being generous.

When I do the math, I come up with 8.5 million dollars in maintenance fees.  In 2009 the figure goes up to $12.4 million dollars.  Both of those numbers are unreasonable by any ones math.  How is it I still am paying the assessment fee on top of these huge maintenance fees.  I will be paying over $2300.00 for two years.  Ouch, there goes Christmas.

Feel free to take apart my math if you feel I should be including other things. Maintenance to me means maintenance not Marriotts ad on fees to make them all rich.

I still want to hear the pros and cons and why people are not doing something about this. 

Marriott needs to turn the other cheek and do the right thing.


----------



## marksue

The reason insurance does not cover the damage is we have a 500k deductable. So the owners are told by Marriott to bend over,  while they give us the shaft.  Time to pass the shaft back to Marriott.

I have found in our bylaws how to remove board members.  I will be typing it up and posting it here. 

If you want to read it go to page 17 section 6.3 of the Marriott's AOC governing Documents.

I am open in trying to get 10% of all the rooms sold to call for a meeting and vote out the current board.

Isn't it amazing that the board has yet let owners know what the fees are nor have we had a letter from the new president introducing himself.


----------



## Steve

Dave M said:


> My statement intentionally did not address whether Marriott would accept listings. My comment addressed only Marriott buybacks (e.g., exercising ROFR).



Hi Dave,

Thanks for the clarification. I have read a number of posts from various people stating that Marriott will (or will not) "buy back" a week when they are actually referring to whether or not Marriott will list the week for resale to another 3rd party.  Some people use those terms somewhat interchangeably.

I had thought that Ellen was considering listing her weeks for sale through Marriott...and that that was what she had meant when she referred to Marriott not "buying back" weeks at Ocean Club.  So, I was confused...but your explanation regarding Marriott not exercising ROFR makes complete sense.

Thanks again,

Steve


----------



## marksue

Foillowing is the rule for recalling a board member.

6.3 Removal of Directors: At any duly convened regular or special meeting, any one or more of the Directors other than the developer elected directors may be removed, with or without cause, by the vote or agreement in writing of a majority of all the voting interests.  Developer elected Directors may be removed only for good cause.

The calling of a special meeting of members to recall members of the board of directors may be called by voting members representing not less than 10% of the total votes.  Notice of such meeting shall be given 14 days prior to such meeting and shall state the purpose of the meeting.  In the event that a majority of the voting members at a duly convened meeting vote to recall a director, the directorship of the recalled member shall be terminated effective immediately and the recalled member shall turn over to the board all records and property of the association in his possession within 5 full business days.


----------



## lovearuba

*Removing members*

So does this mean that Marriott illegally removed Allan?  I doubt that they got a 10% consensus and I dont think this was communicated?  I sure didnt hear about it and I am signed up to receive email updates?  This really needs to be explained.


----------



## concernedowner

marksue said:


> I received an email this morning from an owner asking what we the owners are looking for.  I am going to layout what I consider to be our issues.  All numbers posted here were supplied at the annual meeting
> 
> 1)	Marriott did not disclose that the building was not a Marriott built building but a building they purchased from a bankrupt company
> 2)	It seems obvious that Marriott did not due the proper due diligence on the building or when they finished the building they did not do a quality job, as the building was not waterproofed, as there were leaks from the windows and roof since day 1 thus resulting in constant repair costs including 200k from Omar
> 3)	Did they or the bankrupt company put on a metal roof, (and who puts on a metal roof in the Caribbean) which was replaced a few years ago which the owners had to pay a portion of the cost
> 4)	The cost to repair the roof is 1.6 m,  Marriott is paying 43% of that cost or about 688k
> 5)	Marriott is also giving an additional 1.9 million through waived fees and money float
> 6)	The cost to the owners is 900k for the roof
> 7)	Omar is costing us 200k
> 8)	To waterproof the building is costing us 750k
> 9)	There was additional work outside the refurbishment of about 300 – 500k
> 10)	That is a total cost of about 2.3 million
> 11)	What is not know is how much have we the owners paid for the repair work due to the constant leaking and flooding since Marriott opened the doors to the Ocean Club.  I would guess in the 1.5 – 3 million range. This does not include wear and tear maintenance costs which we are responsible.
> 12)	 So we could say the owners have about $5 million
> 13)	There are a total of 11,118 weeks sold (51 weeks x 218 rooms).  This comes out to just about $450 an owner in operating costs we should not have paid for.
> 14)	So if you are asking me what I want, I want Marriott to pay the $450 that we now have to pay in our maintenance costs, which would bring our annual costs more inline to wear it should be.
> 15)	Another item which needs to be investigated is to see if over the years Marriott has been paying their fair costs for the space taken up by the sales office and desks of the outside companies.  As an owner I asked for and have yet to receive a full accounting and comparison of fair market costs over the years.  How much more is due the owners is unknown.
> 
> MARRIOTT AND THE OCEAN CLUB BOARD DO RIGHT BY THE OWNERS, DON’T RAPE US WITH THESE OUTRAGIOUS CHARGES.  WE WILL NOT SIT STILL FOR IT.  THE FIGHT WILL CONTINUE UNTIL WE ARE TREATED FAIRLY.


I have only recently discovered this forum.  Apparently, much time and thought has been put into these concerns.  Please forgive me if I sound naive.  
So what would happen if the owners sue for $450 each.  How much would an attorney get?  My experience with class action suits has been that the plaintiffs end up with very little of the money.     Are there other options?  Even if I get $450, it does not seem worth increasing the angst between Marriott and the owners.  
However, I do agree that a response from the board is in order.
It does sound like we are being forced to give money to pay for repairs that would not have been necessary if the building had been well constructed.   Are there any similar resorts (size, age, etc, climatic conditions) to which we can compare maintenance costs.  How do we know that the Ocean Club is poorly constructed?   Do we know that repairs are being done appropriately? 
I don't like to see an increase in maintenance fees, but also don't want the Ocean Club to experience more damage due to lack of funding.  Do we know for sure that the underlying problems have been corrected before more money is spent on cosmetic issues?


----------



## Zac495

Dave M said:


> ...and...One of my internal Marriott sources states that Marriott is not currently buying back *any* weeks at any resorts. It has nothing to do with Ocean Club.



Resale yes. I edited this after misunderstanding sweet Dave's post.


----------



## Zac495

Steve said:


> Hi Dave,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. I have read a number of posts from various people stating that Marriott will (or will not) "buy back" a week when they are actually referring to whether or not Marriott will list the week for resale to another 3rd party.  Some people use those terms somewhat interchangeably.
> 
> I had thought that Ellen was considering listing her weeks for sale through Marriott...and that that was what she had meant when she referred to Marriott not "buying back" weeks at Ocean Club.  So, I was confused...but your explanation regarding Marriott not exercising ROFR makes complete sense.
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> 
> 
> Steve



Me too - that's what I thought you meant.


----------



## vincenzi

*I e-mailed the new president of the board*

We own two weeks (2 bedroom units) at the Marriott Aruba Ocean Club.  After reading different posts on TUG, I e-mailed Frank Knox, the new president of the board, on November 2nd.  I asked him to please clarify how much the maintenance and assessment fees were going to cost me next year.  As of yet, he has not responded to my e-mail.  I am very concerned.


----------



## lll1929

vincenzi said:


> We own two weeks (2 bedroom units) at the Marriott Aruba Ocean Club.  After reading different posts on TUG, I e-mailed Frank Knox, the new president of the board, on November 2nd.  I asked him to please clarify how much the maintenance and assessment fees were going to cost me next year.  As of yet, he has not responded to my e-mail.  I am very concerned.



I also email Frank and Alan on 10/30 regarding Maint fees.  Alan returned my call and the Maint fee's in this thread are accurate for Marriott Aruba Ocean Club.  Frank has not responded.  It's very disappointing.


----------



## Kelly&Sean

*Total maintenance fee*

Above, someone was estimating what the total maintenance fees collected were.  I went back and did the actual math based on last years information and what has been reported on this site for this year.

The total maintenance fees collected for 2008 was $10,704,671.  This is from the Vacation Club website.  Based on this information, I have calculated that the total maintenance fees for this year will be $15,452,166.  This is a 44 percent increase.  I determined this years costs based on 6,437 1 bedroom units at $1,198 and 4,790 2 bedroom units at $1,616.  Please note that the total units come straight from last years maintenance fee schedule.

The special assessment in 2009 will equal a total of $7,183,440 and for 2010 of $5,603,137 for a total of $12,786,577.  Again, this is determined based on the special assessment per unit reported on this site.  Since I beleive that there is a total of 218 2 & 1 bedroom units, the per unit cost of the assessment would be about $59,000 per unit.

Again these are estimates based on what has been written, so if something has been written wrong, these numbers could be incorrect.  Yes, I am a nerdy accountant.


----------



## marksue

you are right about 218 rooms.

As for the comment previously about $450.  That represents an estimate of 5 million that I believe Marriott owes us. I don’t want to sue; I want this settled in a way that we the owners are treated fairly.  I have said this in numerous posts.  If Marriott refuses to due anything I certainly won’t take it and a lawsuit is the only option we would have left.

Just think if we had that 5 million and it was earning interest for us, our maintenance fees would be more inline.  Why should a 1 bedroom at the Ocean Club only be less than $100 then the cost of a 2 bedroom in the surf club.

I have seen the posts here from people regarding Frank not returning calls and emails; I have also received many emails stating the same thing.  What is he afraid of?  As an owner you always new if you had a question or concern Allan would listen to you and get back to you in a timely manner.  These days Frank and the board have become silent.  They don’t even want anything on the website.  

I think we should seriously consider getting ourselves a new board that will work for us, and not against us.  Also we need a board which will be open and haring, not hiding so owners are still in the dark.  With all that is going on you have to wonder why the board is so quiet.  Is it that they can not argue the facts that are posted here?

To this day most owners still do not know about the new fees.  Wait till that happens and the sh.... hits the fan.


----------



## esk444

I've been involved in many class action lawsuits.  The attorneys get about 30 to 40% of the settlement, so you aren't going to get $450 per person.  Also, the money would go directly to the class members (less atty fees), not the timeshare.  So you are still going to have a high MF and/or special assessment to fix the place up.  

Also, the class action attorneys aren't really in it to fight for the long haul.  They just want a quick settlement and then move on the next case.  That's why they pressure their clients to accept worthless settlements like $100 in coupons for future stays in Marriott hotels that can only be used in non-peak times.  They still get the 30% to 40% of the nominal value of those coupons even if only a fraction of them are ever redeemed.  So the attorneys extract millions from Marriott, while the plaintiffs get coupons that they probably could have found on retailmenot.com without a lawsuit.


----------



## Kelly&Sean

What I am missing in all this is what happen to Allan?  As far as I know, the president was not up for election.  I actually signed the proxy statement to give Allan the authority to vote for me.  Please help me out here.  I have spoken to Allan a number of times prior to this and thought that he was doing a great job and was truly representing us.


----------



## lovearuba

*class action suits*

I was interested in a class action suit but I think we should get a quorum and ask the board or Marriott directly what their response is to our concerns.  I bought Marriott because of the name, it was reputable.  If given the choice I ask for a Marriott.  I'm not always the most complimentary about them but lets see if we can turn this around and get Marriott to work with us.  To be quite frank I prefer the Ocean club over any other resort in Aruba.

Lets try to work this out, lets see if we can get a formal response from the board.  We need an official response letting us know what they think about our concerns.  What can they do to satisfy our concerns before this gets any further out of hand.  Lets think of ways to cut down on that maintenance fee.  There must be a way to work with Marriott on this one.


----------



## marksue

I agree with you.  As I have said all along a suit is the last action if we get no response from Marriott.  I would love the opportunity to work this out.  I don't have a lot of confidence in the board as they came across as Marriott puppets.  

Based on how Frank has acted, not getting back to anyone, I wonder if there is a way we can get Allan back as president.  I do believe he would be better for us owners.  At least he would post updates on the web, not take them off.

I have not spoken to Allan since I saw him at the owners meeting so I have no idea if he would even want it.

In the meantime I would like to collect email addresses of all owners so if we can get an owners committee togehter to address these issues, we can keep everyone in the loop.

Marriott this is an open invite to reach out talk with the owners and be fair with us.


----------



## OCsun

*All Ocean Club units were inspected today!*

The morning, a letter was left under the door which read.  "Please be informed on Thursday 6th of November 2008 our Chief Engineer will be accessing all the villa units of the Aruba Ocean Club.  This inspection is in connection with the upcoming villa refurbishment. . . . . the duration of this inspection will only take about 3 to 5 minutes per unit."

The first question that came to mind was - shouldn't a complete assessment of all the villa's have been completed prior to a decision to proceed with the refurbishment?    Pam


----------



## lovearuba

*Lets work with Marriott*

Marksue has made some good points and there are so many of us that are upset over the prices.  Lets see if we can work up a letter that asks Marriott to help us turn this situation around.  We can try and address all of our concerns but lets give Marriott the opportunity to speak from their perspective.  We should try the board first because they represent us.  If that doesnt work we can look to replace them.

If you are interested in trying this approach let me know and we can work together putting something together for owner signatures.  No one really really wants to sell their unit.  We bought these units because we love the Marriott name and the Ocean club.  Lets try and turn this situation around.

I bought this unit with what little inheritance I got when my mom passed away.  I wanted to use the money for something fun after spending two years fighting an awful disease.  I planned to leave it to my beautiful daughter who looks forward to going to Aruba every year.  I'm sure others have similar stories and reasons why they are not ready to throw in the towel.

Send me a private message if you are interested in working on the letter.  Thanks


----------



## OCsun

lovearuba said:


> Marksue has made some good points and there are so many of us that are upset over the prices.  Lets see if we can work up a letter that asks Marriott to help us turn this situation around.  We can try and address all of our concerns but lets give Marriott the opportunity to speak from their perspective.  We should try the board first because they represent us.  If that doesnt work we can look to replace them.
> 
> Send me a private message if you are interested in working on the letter.  Thanks



 You are right - let' work this out!  Did Allan Cohen step down?  Pam


----------



## lovearuba

*I take it I can sign you up*

Send me a pm with your email.  As for Allan, he is still on the board and I think they have some limit on how long you can be president.


----------



## tlwmkw

I am not an owner at this resort but have read the many posts with interest.  I can see why everyone is frustrated with the situation but I imagine Marriott are also not happy that the roof has failed, and the other problems.  My one thought is that you should be careful threatening law suits for a number of reasons.  
1.  You said Marriott agreed to pay 43% of the cost of the new roof- if they leave the resort and no longer manage then will this money be off the table?  If so you will be in an even worse position.  
2.  Do research on class action law suits and you will find that you, as owners, will probably not get much out of a settlement even if you do win.  
3.  The reason that information has disappeared from the Web site is probably because of the threats of law suits- as soon as you threaten them they circle the wagons and hunker down.  It becomes much harder to negotiate if you are threatening them
4. Consider if you owned a condo at the beach- the management company (if you use one to rent it out when you are not there) will not give any assistance if there is a problem with the roof or windows or anything else.  You pay 100% of the costs.  Marriott could easily take that attitude and offer no assistance with the costs so you want to be careful how you demand things.  I know this from personal experience- that is why I like the timeshare model just because there is someone else handling all the day-to-day costs and management issues (which can be very significant).  I think it is worth the management fee not to do that myself.
5.  Is the resort under US or Aruban laws?  This will be very important if you do sue because it may have a significant effect on the outcome.

Regardless what happens I do hope this works out in a way that everyone is happy with the results.


----------



## Dave M

tlwmkw said:


> 5.  Is the resort under US or Aruban laws?  This will be very important if you do sue because it may have a significant effect on the outcome.


I'm virtually certain that U.S. law would not apply. Marriott has one or more separate international corporations that own the unsold units at the non-U.S. timeshares and manage those resorts.


----------



## Jay12

My understanding is that Allan was voted out as President. It takes three votes and Marriott cast one and the existing Board Members cast the other two. 
The Treasurer asked for some financial assisstance and I was one of about forty that volunteered. She sent us some financial information to look at and it was very amateurish. I quickly saw why we are in the poor financial shape we are in regarding the accessment and concluded that the Treasurer's position is a ceremonial position.


----------



## lovearuba

*Not sure it matters*

Hi
Im not sure what difference it makes on why Allan is no longer around.  What is important is resolving our issues.  I would like to try to work it out with Marriott first.  If you would like to support that effort let me know.  If I dont get a lot of response I will just let it alone.  Any suggestions would be appreciated.  Thanks for those who have responded.


----------



## Kelly&Sean

*Allan's Removal*

I think that it is important for people to know what happened to Allan.  I personally felt that he was looking out for the best interests of the timeshare and its owners.  I can not understand how he can just be removed by the other officers when there are thousands of owners with an investment in this property that get no say.  Further, if these officers did vote him out, again for me personally, it does not say a lot for them.  Allan was fighting with Marriott to protect our investment and he gets voted out.  That's a problem which would seem to indicate that these current officers are not looking out for us but Marriott.  We need to establish who these officers are looking out for.


----------



## marksue

I agree with you.  I have had concerns with the board since the annual meeting.  If what is stated about Allan is true then I am really get angry with with this board of ours.  I think this shows that the board is not looking out for the owners.  We need representation of  10% of all sold rooms.  If an owner owns more than 1 room then the number of rooms they own will go against the 10% of members we need to recall the board.

I know we are trying to get an owners group together to work with Marriott, to come up with an agreeable resolution to the issues addressed in this blog.  In additon, if they did force Allan out I believe we need to ask all board members except Allan to resign or we start a recall effort.  

Please get the word out to other owners so we can start moving forward.  In the meantime we the owners will try to get an audience with Marriott to discuss a solution to these issues.


----------



## lovearuba

*Need help for a letter to Marriott*

Hi
I am not dismissing concerns over Allans removal.  I voted for him and I also was very happy with him representing us.  But right now he is not the president and there does not appear to be anyone helping get our concerns addressed.  Maintenance fee bills will probably be coming out next month, we need to act now.

Given this I am suggesting we the owners put together a letter to the board and to Marriott letting them know how upset we are and that we want them to explain to us what they are doing to resolve our concerns. 

The bottom line is none of us feel we should be paying the huge increase in maintenance fees.  We thought our maintenance fees would be used for refurbishnents and now we find out they will be charging us special assessments on top of maintenance fees.  I for one think that maintenance fee is too high now and dont want to see it increased.  I will swallow the fact that a special assessment is going to happen and I'll have to find a way to pay it.  I would like to have some more oversight on the finances for these maintenace fees.  I shouldnt be paying $500 more this year than last year for maintenance.  I recommend that we ask Marriott to reduce that and keep it in line with the fees for the surf club since we area already being assessed the special assessments. 

If the board does not respond we can move to remove them and put Allan back if that is what he wants.  If I were him I would probably want to walk away from this ugly situation.  But lets at least try to get an answer because right now we have two options, we can try to work through them or we can support Marksue and start a class action suit.  I know Marksue has plenty of names to get that going but it does take years and we have not officially heard Marriott's point of view.

Because this thread is getting so long and people are responding to comments that are no longer relative I am opening a new one titled, "Aruba Ocean Club Owners, Sign up for a letter to Marriott regarding Maintenance Fees".


----------



## marksue

Lovearubas suggestion is the way to go. As I ahve said allalong a lawsit is a last ditch effort.  I support the letter effort 100% and will work with Lovearuba on getting this done.


----------



## Dave M

All discussion and comments regarding writing a letter to Marriott should be posted in this separate thread..


----------



## JimC

Older resorts cost more to maintain then new resorts.  And there is probably some economy of scale; so smaller resorts are likely to cost more than larger resorts on a per unit week.


----------



## marksue

Jim to some extent you may be right.  But there is no justification of a 35% increase in 1 year.  If Marriott had been paying thier fare share of the space they have been using for the Surf Club sales office and for the damages due to the subpar building they purchased then our fees would not be as high as they are.

THe issue here is the Ocean Club board  is not representing the owners but being Marriott Puppets.  Based on comments here it seems like the board forced out the president who everyone has respected and felt like he was looking out for our best interest.


----------



## JimC

Mark -  I used to own AOC and sold it for a profit when I realized you could visit it for less than owning it.  Thought is was a great island with a nice but aging resort, but a disappointing development of the Surf Club site -- in my opinion too much resort for the footprint.  I have no quarrel with your frustrations in this situation.

My point is that you need a very tight rationale if you are going to put your HOA and Marriott at task.  Simply comparing OC with SC or any other resort is not persuasive.  

It would seem that your best approach is an objective presentation of the facts; an analysis of where process and disclosure did not follow the rules/governing documents and/or best timeshare governance and operating practices; and a well thought out list of remedies.  It may be helpful to pay for an adviser who is familiar with this industry and these types of situations.  I am not advising litigation, but rather someone who can counsel you on your rights in this situation and the process to follow.  Engaging in frank discussion is a good initial step since the owners, the HOA and Marriott all need to live with each other after this is all over.


----------



## lovearuba

*Judy from my threat*

Hi 
Can you go into the other thread and respond to Judy, give her some information on what happenend at the owners meeting.  Thanks


----------



## modoaruba

*my 2 cents*

Hi,

To introduce ourselves,we own 4 weeks at the OC.
We bought 2 weks in'98 and the other 2 '02.

When we were given the sales pitch ,the numbers made sense that it was not for an investment but a prepaid vacation which was OK with us back then.
By now we would be ahead of the game.
BUT ARE WE???
No one ever mentioned the fees that we now have to face.
If this was an investment yes it would be but now we have a loss.

Try to play the Marriott game of what we could do with our weeks.
We could trade for points. Well having a 1 BR gives us 90,000 pts.
Wow where could you go of equal value?

Renting? It worked out great for us using Marriott to rent through. They must have figured out that we made more than our maintainance fees so they changed that system. Now only they can make the money.

Selling? Try it. Not in this economy. Selling through Marriott gives them all of our gains. If we could break even that would be great.

We placed a week through Redweek as someone suggested.What a shocker to see that our units could be had for as little as $500/week!!!

Why buy the cow for a glass of milk.

So much for our introduction.

As for the existing Board---Marriott puppets???


----------



## lovearuba

*HMM the sales pitch was just that*

Hi
I've always asked on this site why Marriott allows sales people to misrepresent the truth.  I had the same speel and could go on and on about what a wonderful place Michelle (a guy) pitched to us.  First the points, we got 100K and I couldnt believe I couldnt rent my same unit for that.  In addiition, once I got enought points (it took years), I could not find one week in the entire year where I found an opening using reward points, there was plenty of availability just not with points.  I called Marriott and they just wouldnt help, they saw availability in both the surf and ocean and they knew those units would go unrented but they still wouldn't help.

When I bought this unit, I didnt know that Marriott couldnt be trusted.  Trust is huge, I trusted Marriott. Why would I think a company as well known and respected as Marriott would allow that type of deception.  

We also tried the rental angle, it was a joke.  If my husband could have reached through the phone the person on the other end would be missing his head.  

Well so we were also taken as many folks are.  Up until last year I really did enjoy the timeshare.  I brought friends and family with me.  I have a two bedroom and wouldnt think of inviting someone and asking them to pay.  Its so different now.  Its just an ugly story.

I want Marriott to step up to the plate and fix this, they contributed to it and they need to address it.  

Our first attempt will be a letter to the board.  After that we are likely to have to take additional steps.  I'm in it for the long hall.  My daughter is going to college next year and I will have plenty of time on my hands to keep this active if I need to.


----------



## vincenzi

*Several Questions About Board Members*

I am confused as to why all the e-mail addresses of our board members have been removed from the Marriott Aruba Ocean Club website.  Who removed them? Marriott?  If they represent us (the owners), why aren't we able to communicate with them?  It doesn't seem right to me.


----------



## lovearuba

*email addresses*

it doesnt matter they wont respond to your emails.  I have the email for the new president, he doesnt respond


----------



## vincenzi

*Board Members*

I e-mailed the President before the e-mail addresses were removed.  He didn't respond to me either.  But, I want to know WHY he hasn't responded. WHY are the board members not communicating with the owners? They are the liaison between the owners and Marriott.  Correct?  Has Marriott prohibited them from responding at this point in time?  I guess since we are ONLY the owners, we are not privy to any information.


----------



## Dave M

When people threaten a lawsuit, which is the case here, lawyers almost always ask those that they represent to refuse to comment on any matters that might be involved in such a suit. Since it's at least possible that a suit might include claims against board members, it's easy to figure out why board members are not responding.


----------



## modoaruba

*Marriott Aruba OC*

Just to comment,

The timing of these fees in this economy is very hurtful to most owners.
Obviously there are problems which are ongoing since the construction of the property.
Should the blame be put on the party that hired the contractors who have obviously used inferior materials had poor workmanship?
Buildings do age and maintanance must be kept up with.
But these problems with the roof and leaky windows are ongoing since the beginning. At least as long as I can recall from 1998.
Many of us are fired up.

To diffuse this situation one must look at the namesake that is on display to the world on our building and to let them do the right thing.
I am in business for 28+ years. The last thing I want is a unhappy customer.
For us, the amount of money requested is exhorbitant. For Marriott it would be wisefull to weigh out the expense costs versus the negative advertisement. The old adage is one happy customer will tell a friend(that is why they want us to provide names of others to invite-they know this) one unhappy customer will tell 10. Who would list anybody we are concerned about to potentially be a buyer knowing what we know.


----------



## vincenzi

*That Makes Sense*

Dave, thanks for the explanation. That makes sense.  I should have figured that one out since I am married to an attorney.    And, am I fired up?  You betcha!


----------



## marksue

Vicenzi, is your spouse a class action lawyer.  WOuld love to hear what they have to say.  

Frank Knox wasn't even at the owners meeting.  I believe he knew it was going to be a disaster of a meeting so he left that morning.  Seems odd that work called him back the day of the owners meeting but he was there the day before to kick Allan out as president. 

Come on Frank why are you afraid of the owners?  How much is Marriott giving to you and the board to support thier stance?

Barron's just had an article on Marriott and the family selling thier stock.  I wrote to them and sent them the link to this site.  I am going to be sending to more of the press this site and maybe we can get some print publicity.


----------



## Eric

Now thats the approach I would take if I wanted to get something accomplished. Suggesting the HOA is on the take is probably the smartest method.


----------



## marksue

Not suggesting they are onthe take, but there has to be something on the table that they are not fighting for the owners.  WHy would you think they are not fighting for the owners.  If you were at the meeting you would wonder the same thing.


----------



## Eric

What I think is you only know part of the story and are assuming the rest. 




marksue said:


> Not suggesting they are onthe take, but there has to be something on the table that they are not fighting for the owners.  WHy would you think they are not fighting for the owners.  If you were at the meeting you would wonder the same thing.


----------



## lovearuba

*So Eric Tell us the rest*

Hi Eric
Your remark is curious, let us know what the rest of the story is?


----------



## marksue

I was just about to ask Eric the same thing.  Eric, are you invovled with the board or Marriott.  If you are would like to hear your input to what is going on.


----------



## lovearuba

*lets not hurt Fred*

I dont know Fred but if I were him and had to really leave to go home I would be upset that folks actually implied I was on the take.  Lets not accuse this man.  He might just be under enough stress from Marriott and is just a scaredy cat (meow). 

Dave is right, Marriott is probably telling the board what to say and not say.  Hopefully our letter gets them to officially respond to our concerns.

A lot of folks that are interested in putting their name on the letter are adamant about the leaky building situation.  If you havent signed up please do.  Thanks


----------



## marksue

Iam not saying Fred is on the take.  What I am questioning is has Marriott made promsies to the board to keep them quiet.  WE the owners deserve to hear from the board and we arent.  Ever since they took Allan out as president we hear nothing.


----------



## Dave M

See my post #128 above for the more likely reason why the Board is keeping quiet. Advising possible defendants (and that includes Board members in this situation) to keep silent for their own protection is standard procedure for lawyers.  Once the first person suggested that Board members might have acted improperly, that almost guaranteed  that there would be no further communication on this issue until there is court action or some resolution.

Your suggestions that there might be secret "promises" or other favors between Marriott and Board members seem way out of line and inappropriate.


----------



## timeos2

*No excuse*



Dave M said:


> See my post #128 above for the more likely reason why the Board is keeping quiet. Advising possible defendants (and that includes Board members in this situation) to keep silent for their own protection is standard procedure for lawyers.  Once the first person suggested that Board members might have acted improperly, that almost guaranteed  that there would be no further communication on this issue until there is court action or some resolution.
> 
> Your suggestions that there might be secret "promises" or other favors between Marriott and Board members seem way out of line and inappropriate.



If they are hiding behind some lawyer, from Marriott?, saying "Keep quiet" then they really aren't representing the owners. They should have an independent Association attorney. If they did it is my experience that they would be advised to bring the owners into the mix unless it is privileged information (not much would be as the owners ARE the Association).  

The lack of contact is disturbing and only feeds the idea that Marriott is trying to squelch owners input and ability to obtain information.   Not a good situation.


----------



## Dave M

I would agree, except for one thing.  There have been allegations here of possible Board misconduct and threats of a lawsuit. Any individual who believes he/she might well be a defendant in such a suit would be an idiot to speak publicly (e.g., to owners, which would be reported publicly here), except for carefully worded statements approved by an attorney. Considering the nature of the dispute, no attorney would allow his possible-defendant-client to say anything that those seeking answers here would find meaningful.

A Marriott attorney can't stop a Board member from speaking out. The Board member's own attorney should strongly discourage any such communication.

Also. even though idependent Marriott HOA Board members are covered by Marriott-paid D&O insurance, they could still have personal liability, depending on their actions and the nature and amount of coverage.


----------



## Dave M

Incidentally, I have no axe to grind on the topic of this thread. I'm not an Ocean Club owner, but there certainly seem to be some legitimate concerns that will have to be resolved one way or another over time.

However, for the reasons I have enumerated, I believe that suggestions that Board members should be communicating with their accusers is unrealistic. And, unfortunately, it's too late to go back and tell Board members that "We're on the same side of this issue so please help us out."


----------



## lovearuba

Hi Dave
Are you suggesting that we shouldnt attempt to write them a letter asking them to let us know what they were doing to address our concerns?  This would really be disturbing.  

I am hoping to finish the letter with input from a few owners that have been helping me.  I know you dont think its a large number but I have more than 60 ocean club owners, some with multiple weeks that want to be included.  I have promised that I will send the draft to them in advance and they can opt out if they wish.  My letter will be respectful but direct.  

The board is supposed to represent us and we expect them to respond to us.  

Thanks for keeping impartial on this one, I know you have a positive opinion of Marriott.


----------



## Dave M

Not at all! I believe you should put forth the best effort possible to try to get what you seek. But don't get your hopes up for a meaningful response any time soon. I believe, however, that if you can get enough participation in your effort, your chances of eventually getting some meaningful correspondence from Marriott go up a lot. "Eventually" might well be a long time - many months - from now.


----------



## JimC

I agree with Dave on this, which is why I said that the owners should get professional counsel and then proceed accordingly.  Your chance of getting a dialog underway depend heavily on the tone and content of your communications with the HOA and Marriott as well as what you post in public forums.


----------



## Eric

I have no clue but you guys ASSUME way to much. HOA members do what they do for free. To assume they don't have the best interests of the resort in mind, to me, makes no sense so unless proved otherwise, I would give them the benefit of the doubt. Not answering your emails doesn't make them evil  



lovearuba said:


> Hi Eric
> Your remark is curious, let us know what the rest of the story is?


----------



## lovearuba

*have you read the entire thread*

Hi Eric
I am curious, have you read the entire thread?  As an owner whos fees are going from 1100 in maintenance to 1600 in mainteance with an additional 700 for the next two years as "special" assessment fee it seems no one is really representing us.  

If you read the letter Marksue added, it is still available through the marriott ocean club website.  It is clear the board was looking towards a legal solution if they werent getting what they needed from Marriott.  Then lo and behold the strongest member of the board is somehow no longer the president.  We are left with folks that may be working with Marriott but if they are representing us they should be sharing their efforts with us.  No taxation without representation and we dont feel we are being represented.  Marksue and I agree we need to give them an opportunity to respond to our concerns and will make an effort through a letter from the owners to get that response, if it doesnt work we really dont have a choice but to pursue professional help.

My thoughts as I anxiously await my maintenance bill wrapped nicely with a special assessment bow.


----------



## modoaruba

*question*

If enough owners ehibit no confidence in the existing board can the board be then forced to resign? If so what percentage of owners is needed?


----------



## vincenzi

*Disappointed*

I am thankful for Tug so I can vent my feelings.  When my husband and I bought our two weeks at the Marriott Aruba Ocean Club, we thought we were dealing with an honest and ethical company.  We fell in love with Aruba the first time we visited.  We checked other timeshares in Aruba.  However, we felt so comfortable dealing with Marriott.  At the time, the reputation of Marriott was exceptional.  We paid quite a bit of money for our Marriott timeshare but we thought it was worth it.  The name, Marriott, spoke volumes to us. What has happened to this company?  I am so disappointed.  Apparently, greed has once again replaced honesty and integrity.


----------



## JimIg23

I guess the question would be, what can the Board realistically do?  If the roof has to be fixed and Marriott says it is the HOA's problem, after arguing with Marriott, what are their options?  Can they refuse?  If they refuse, would that just shut down the TS completely by government inspectors?  Can the Board authorize attorney fees to be paid to sue Marriott or the construction inspector/contractor that caused the problem on behalf of the HOA?


----------



## luvmypt

I received the Presidents letter a little while ago and in it, it says the first assessment is due in January. What ever happened to it being due in June? Not only do we have the MF increase we also have the assessment on top of that.


----------



## marksue

Here is the lame letter from the president.  I will address the points in this letter on the next post.  Sure does  sound like he works for Marriott.  And he dosent even address the forcing out of Allan as president.




November 12, 2008
Dear Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club Owner:
Your Board of Directors just returned from the Annual Fall Board of Directors and Annual Meetings in Aruba; I would like to take this opportunity to update you on the status of a number of initiatives that affect us all. In addition to this communication, Resort Management will be sending a separate communication further detailing all the exciting changes taking place on the property.
First, we are very pleased to have a new Aruba Ocean Club General Manager on the team, solely dedicated to our property. Corey Guest has been in the hospitality industry for over 20 years, working for Hyatt Hotels, PepsiCo, Wyndham Hotels and for the last five years, Marriott International. What is more important is that most of the past 18 years, Corey has lived in Aruba and is very familiar with the island and changes that have occurred. Corey has impressed us all with his attention to detail and “can-do” attitude - but most important he has been very visible, accessible and responsive to the Owners. As you will see further on in this letter, Corey and his staff have a daunting task ahead given the sheer number and scope of the projects they have already started and will continue to manage over the next 12 months.
Undoubtedly you have read or heard about the challenges that we have faced with our roof over the past few years. I am pleased to report that a total roof replacement is well underway and should be completed by mid-December. Marriott Vacation Club International® contracted with a nationally recognized and respected roof engineer/expert to advise us on the replacement. Independently, the Board also contracted with structural and mechanical engineers as well as an environmental expert to cross-check and verify that the installation, condition of existing structure and any environmental concerns meet stringent approval standards. First, the roof is being replaced in its entirety using an industry standard design that has been modified for Aruba’s harsh sun and wind conditions. Second, we are pleased to report that there is no structural damage and while traces of water intrusion were found in areas that had sustained some water damage, it is easily remediated. There has been some erroneous information being circulated about the roof that should be clarified. First, the original roof was not defective; the building itself was constructed in the early to mid-90’s; later purchased by Marriott Vacation Club International and then completed and opened as the Aruba Ocean Club in 1999. The original roof is now past its useful life given the extreme conditions in Aruba; last year Marriott Vacation Club International agreed with the Board to pay a substantial portion or percentage of the cost to replace the roof based on the period of time prior when it was turned over to the Association.
Recently the island of Aruba experienced some severe weather and power outages that negatively affected all businesses and homes. Most of us in the States heard very little, if anything at all, about Hurricane Omar which developed over a period of 36 hours just slightly to the north of Aruba during mid-October. Once developed the hurricane then took a north-easterly course and quickly passed by the Virgin Islands and then into the Atlantic where is dissipated. While it did not directly strike Aruba, heavy rains and tropical storm force winds for a period of a couple days caused more damage to the island than at any time since Hurricane Lenny in 1999. The Ocean Club, like many other properties on the island, suffered beach erosion, landscaping and water damage on the west side facing ocean front units. Most of the repairs are complete but the unexpected cost of repairs not covered by our insurance deductible must be paid by the Association. Everyone worked around the clock to re-establish services, clean up the water intrusion and remove the massive amounts of seaweed from the beach. On a side note, I would like to thank the many Owners who were in Aruba during Hurricane Omar for your assistance that helped the staff with beach clean-up. While no one can control ‘mother nature’, the staff did a tremendous job getting the facility back into working order as quickly as possible.
The Board has been communicating with the Owners for the past several years regarding the anticipated 10-year renovation of the property. Let me assure you that we are extremely sensitive to the current economic conditions, but after walking through the entire property, we all agreed that our resort is showing very visible signs of its age and extremely heavy use (The Ocean Club averages over 94% occupancy year in and year out). For that reason, we are moving forward with the complete renovation of the property from the lobby to the hallways and on into each and every villa. Our goal is to get maximum value for every dollar spent to ensure that in the end we will all have a resort that we can be both comfortable in and proud of.
The cost of this extensive renovation necessitates an assessment of the Owner. However, with the help of Marriott Vacation Club International we were able to split the assessment over a two year period. The first assessment will come in several weeks (with payment due in January) and will cover renovation expenses for 2009; the second assessment will come in 2010. Despite the fact that the Association will have collected only half the funds, the renovation will begin in July 2009 and should be complete prior to Thanksgiving. Marriott Vacation Club International is assisting us financially in two critical ways. The number of villas available to Owners during that period will not be reduced as villas that they control through exchange and/or rental will be used to offset the villas taken out of inventory during the renovation. Second, they are assisting us by basically advancing the second half of the funds needed for the project even though those funds will not be collected until five to six months following completion of the renovation. The Board is extremely appreciative for their cooperation in helping us accelerate the renovation, reducing our costs as Owners by over $ 1.5M and managing the renovation in such a way as not to inconvenience our Owners.
This letter is the first communication of several; the next will be the management fall update of the resort followed by the annual billing which will include the first of two special assessments related to the upcoming renovation. The scope and cost of the renovation has been communicated in prior updates and the Board is still following the same strategy that has been laid out over the past couple of years. Aside from the renovation assessment, you will notice that your maintenance fee has increased from the prior year and the information regarding the factors necessitating the increase is included herein as well as in the operations update and the billing notice.
After spending much time with the accounting staff, it is clear that the increase is driven almost entirely by inflation and the higher cost of electricity, water, labor and other goods and services on Aruba. As just one example, although our conservation efforts last year reduced electricity consumption by 5%, the cost of electricity on the island increased over 40%! Some of these increases are a result of higher oil prices but others are driven by a tight labor market and increased costs for shipping.
I am honored and humbled to have been elected as President of the Association. We have a strong, dynamic and talented Board that has the experience and commitment to guide us through these issues. The challenges that lay ahead will demand the time and energy of the Board like no time in the past. However, our #1 priority will always be to make the right decisions for the right reasons and to be as efficient as possible as we allocate our funds for these projects. Our ultimate goal is to give all of us a resort that we can continue to enjoy and be proud of for many years to come.
Sincerely,
Frank Knox
President
Marriott Aruba Ocean Club Association


----------



## marksue

Ok I have broken this down in pieces and will lay out the facts that Frank failed to tell us.

*"First, we are very pleased to have a new Aruba Ocean Club General Manager on the team, solely dedicated to our property."*

With all the rising costs, why at this time did the board decide to take on the added expenses of a dedicated resource?  We could have reduced some of the fee for a period of time by continuing to share resources.

*“Undoubtedly you have read or heard about the challenges that we have faced with our roof over the past few years.“*

Challenges for the past few years, come on Frank speak the truth, we have had problems since the Ocean Club opened.  It has leaked since day one and we the owners have paid to continue to repair the building every time it leaks and floods.

*“First, the original roof was not defective; the building itself was constructed in the early to mid-90’s; later purchased by Marriott Vacation Club International and then completed and opened as the Aruba Ocean Club in 1999.”*

If the roof was not defective why has it leaked since day 1.  Why didn’t Marriott reveal to the owners before buying that the building was not built by Marriott and that the structure was already 5 or more years old?  Sounds like a lack of full disclosure.

*“The Ocean Club, like many other properties on the island, suffered beach erosion, landscaping and water damage on the west side facing ocean front units. Most of the repairs are complete but the unexpected cost of repairs not covered by our insurance deductible must be paid by the Association.”*


Why did the Surf Club not experience the same kind of damage as the Ocean Club.  They have ocean front units as well.  The reason is the Ocean club was not properly waterproofed thus 120 rooms were severely damaged.  All due to Marriott not properly fixing up the building they bought.

*“The scope and cost of the renovation has been communicated in prior updates and the Board is still following the same strategy that has been laid out over the past couple of years. Aside from the renovation assessment, you will notice that your maintenance fee has increased from the prior year and the information regarding the factors necessitating the increase is included herein as well as in the operations update and the billing notice.”*

Frank, why have you not told everyone about the increase amount?  You come across as it is a minimal increase, when you are increasing the fees by 35%.  

*“The challenges that lay ahead will demand the time and energy of the Board like no time in the past.”*

Frank, the reason you have the challenges that are demanding your time and energy is your lack of openness to the owners.  When Allan was president he was open with the owners and was more than willing to discuss what was going on.  Since you the board and Marriott forced Allan out, you have kept everyone in the dark.  Why not share with the owners that you voted Allan out versus just saying there is a new president?  Why are you and the board hiding behind the Marriott apron strings?  Why not let the owners decide if you should be president or if we want Allan as president?

The letter sent to the owners is a pro Marriott letter and not an honest letter to the owners.  We as owners need to demand more openness and the right to see how much we have spent over 9 years due to Marriott’s lack of due diligence and responsibility in the state of the Ocean Club.

Why are we hearing only in the last few months that Marriott did not build the Ocean club from the ground up?  Give is answers not the leis you put in the letter.  Why is this letter not posted on the Aruba Ocean Club website?


----------



## Chari910

I'm a 2BR OF owner.

If we have to pay anyway, can we negotiate for Marriott to 'give' owners extra MR points at least to be used at hotels?? Marriott throws away enough points for the sales presentation, they should give back to people who actually bought the property.

Say.....double the points that you usually get for the trade in of your unit.  

or whatever...someone please come up with a fair number.


----------



## Eric

Your kidding, right ?
I have a bridge in Brooklyn thats for sale. Interested ? 



Chari910 said:


> I'm a 2BR OF owner.
> 
> If we have to pay anyway, can we negotiate for Marriott to 'give' owners extra MR points at least to be used at hotels?? Marriott throws away enough points for the sales presentation, they should give back to people who actually bought the property.
> 
> Say.....double the points that you usually get for the trade in of your unit.
> 
> or whatever...someone please come up with a fair number.


----------



## luvmypt

marksue said:


> Why should a 1 bedroom in the Ocean club go from 886 to 1198 and then the assessment on top of that?  That is a 35% increase.  Then the assessment is on top of that 540 for year 1 and 421 for year 2, for a 1 bedroom.
> 
> The 2 bedrooms are going from 1172 to 1616 and the assessment is 774 for year 1 and slightly less for year 2.



Using the above figures, come January, we would owe, for our 1 bedroom, 1198 + 540 and, for our 2 bedroom, 1616 + 774 for a total of $4128. We budgeted for a 5% increase in MFs and we also budgeted for our assessments that were originally due in June. We are beside ourselves trying to figure out where in the hell we're going to get the extra money to pay for everything.  BTW, the roof leaked in 2001 when we bought and we were never told the building was not built by Marriott.


----------



## modoaruba

I suggest that Marriott offers to take back our units at our original cost due to their deception.


----------



## lovearuba

*wow - he's not a very good representative*

This is sad.  Its actually a lot worse than I hoped for, I'm not sure writing him a letter is going to help but I think we need to give it the old college try.  For those of you who are waiting to see it I am  committing to getting it to you by mid week.  I do think we need to be stronger than I originally intended because nothing has changed, they are moving forward to dumping all the expenses on us and Frank missed a lot of points in his letter that were previously sited as concern areas by the original board.  You all remember the original board, the one we voted for.


----------



## marksue

I really believe Frank, the board and Marriott think the owners are fools and will take this sitting down.  It is Mid November, Payment of fees are due by early January, when are they going to send an announcement of the new increase to everyone.  They will wait until the fees are due, so there will be little time to make calls and scream about how we the owners are being ripped off.  This is a show of how secretive the board has become, and it is what Marriott wants.  Owners of other resorts have already gotten notice of their increases based on posting on other blogs.

We need to get a total of 1100 rooms of ownership to recall this board.  Everyone needs to notify anyone they know who owns units to get on board with us.  I know one owner who is going to Aruba in the next couple of weeks and will be speaking with everyone at the Ocean Club to join up.

IS there anyone else going to Aruba in the next few weeks?  If so, let me know and I will develop a notice to get people involved.


----------



## modoaruba

We will be their 11/30 to 12/14 and have 4 units.


----------



## marksue

Send me your email address. I have a 1 pager that you can take down with you and distribute to other owners to make them aware of what is taking place.

We need to get 1100 rooms to start the recall process of the board.  

I have been in touch with a person from Aruba, who knows a good lawyer down there to assist us in our efforts.


----------



## vincenzi

*Continue to Enjoy...That's a Joke*

Frank writes, "Our ultimate goal is to give all of us a resort that we can continue to enjoy and be proud of for many years to come".  How can we continue to enjoy our resort if we can't afford the exorbitant fees and assessment.  None of the owners ever anticipated such fees.  We did not budget them into our costs of owning a timeshare at the Marriott Aruba Ocean Club.  Yes, we planned for an increase.  But, this is totally absurd.


----------



## Retired to Travel

*Did anyone volunteer?*

I didn't keep each newsletter from Allan Cohen, but in mid-August he asked for owners to volunteer financial expertise, and explained many of these expense issues.  I wonder whether any of those posting here were willing to help at that critical time?  He wrote:

"The Board of Directors is seeking owners with Accounting or Finance backgrounds who would like to volunteer on a Finance Committee to assist in the oversight of the financial operations and reserve fund planning of the Aruba Ocean Club.  The Finance Committee will consist of 2-4 members and will meet mostly via conference call and possibly a reimbursable trip as needed.  If you feel that you can be of assistance to this committee on behalf of all the owners, please forward your letter of interest and credentials to me (_address omitted by poster)_no later than September 30."

If you aspire to remove the current board, I hope you have some astute, experienced and willing candidates to replace them.  It's not an easy job.


----------



## Eric

The first thing you learn in the REAL world is if you complain, make sure you have a better solution. Who here has the expericence to run the HOA better ?
If not, be careful what you ask for..... All I have heard here are childish demands which will never fly.... 



Retired to Travel said:


> If you aspire to remove the current board, I hope you have some astute, experienced and willing candidates to replace them.  It's not an easy job.


----------



## timeos2

Eric said:


> The first thing you learn in the REAL world is if you complain, make sure you have a better solution. Who here has the expericence to run the HOA better ?
> If not, be careful what you ask for..... All I have heard here are childish demands which will never fly....



While I always respect any owners that wish to make things better by actively taking part in the operations and meetings making unrealistic demands helps no one and hurts any legitimate attempts to improve things.  Reading this thread there are some good ideas and legitimate issues. Go after them by all means - hopefully by letter, meeting attendance and other non-confrontational interaction with the Board. Lawsuits, threats of removal only serve to inflame things and harden positions. Then we have the "Marriott shold pay 110% for EVERYTHING that happened since we bought" and "They should refund my money" crowd. It isn't going to happen and again weakens the negotiation position for the more reasonable requests that may actually be workable. 

Hopefully cool heads will prevail and a fair agreement can be worked out. There are far too many examples of the bad things that happen when the owners, Board and management decide to butt heads and most of those stories end with a resort in bad shape, too much wasted money and far too much work still waiting to be done.  While improvements can ultimately result the process is delayed for far too long when its done with an overly adversarial approach.


----------



## Eric

There's the ever popular " Double the points value of our week " request also  




timeos2 said:


> While I always respect any owners that wish to make things better by actively taking part in the operations and meetings making unrealistic demands helps no one and hurts any legitimate attempts to improve things.  Reading this thread there are some good ideas and legitimate issues. Go after them by all means - hopefully by letter, meeting attendance and other non-confrontational interaction with the Board. Lawsuits, threats of removal only serve to inflame things and harden positions. Then we have the "Marriott shold pay 110% for EVERYTHING that happened since we bought" and "They should refund my money" crowd. It isn't going to happen and again weakens the negotiation position for the more reasonable requests that may actually be workable.
> 
> Hopefully cool heads will prevail and a fair agreement can be worked out. There are far too many examples of the bad things that happen when the owners, Board and management decide to butt heads and most of those stories end with a resort in bad shape, too much wasted money and far too much work still waiting to be done.  While improvements can ultimately result the process is delayed for far too long when its done with an overly adversarial approach.


----------



## marksue

Eric we can certainly make it better.  For your information, people ahve been trying to contact the board and Marriott for months with no repsonse or action from either.

I know many people that can do a better job than the current board. Where you at the owners meeting?  I doubt it.  Do you even own a unit at the Ocean Club?  

The boards fiduciary duty is to the owners.  Not communciating with the owners says something about the board.  

If we were not here, Marriott would be happy and they would continue to take advantage of the owners.  It is time for the owners to take a stand.


----------



## lovearuba

*In response to your question on volunteering to be on the finance committee*

Yes, the answer is yes.  M Pericolosi from the board received over 40 volunteers for the Finance positions, she selected two and sent out an email that read, "Jim Fanning of NY and Joe Folisi of IL have been selected to serve on AOC's Finance Committee.  Both are CPAs, MBAs and have Home Owner's 
Association experience.  Their official announcement will be made at 
next Wednesday's Annual Meeting.	

Plenty of folks are willing to step up to the plate and help.  I take it neither one of you are owners so I'm not sure why you are so interested in the situation, which time shares do you own and how much are you paying for maintenance fees?


----------



## lovearuba

*Eric*

Eric, do you work for Marriott?  :ignore:


----------



## timeos2

*It's a universal issue*



lovearuba said:


> Plenty of folks are willing to step up to the plate and help.  I take it neither one of you are owners so I'm not sure why you are so interested in the situation, which time shares do you own and how much are you paying for maintenance fees?



No, I'm not an owner at OC but the issues are far from unique. In fact I've been down the road of Association vs developer personally which fortunately was not too long and drawn out (only a year and by the way the owners "won" but at a direct cost of over $225,000 plus over 5 years more to get the resort really back on track).  In that case after the dispute was settled the ROOFS (multibuilding development) failed (after only 10 of a supposed 30+ year lifespan due to improper construction) and, guess what, despite a lawsuit the developer was found not liable so I speak from experience. We also had to fight the attempted takeover of the owner Board, dismissal of Board members, etc. Sound familiar?  Having been in court I know what the justice system will listen to and what they consider "fluff" or whining.  They have a very narrow view of contracts, rights and its far too easy to think you have the perfect case when the other side has just as persuasive arguments.  No one comes out with all they think they should and its almost always cheaper to simply come to agreement outside of the courts. 

Another example is the HOA vs developer at Bluebeards Castle. They lost 5 years+ as the resort slid into total disrepair and ended up settling for basically what Fairfield offered to start with. They could have had the money, done the improvements/repairs and saved the legal fees instead of losing all those years. That resort may never fully recover. 

Experience shows that negotiation and compromise is almost always the preferred course over lawsuits.  No one ever gets what they feel they are due 100% on either side. Save the money and work things out as most of the time you'll end up in the same place just poorer if you don't.  

As for fees and special assessments we had to have both at the resort that went through the lawsuit. But since then the fees have stabilized and going forward it appears the annual fees are collecting enough reserve funds to properly fund future needs at the resort. And after a few years of exceeding the average cost for the area - when the SA was included - now fees are on the lower end and have been holding fairly steady. A sign of good management and good planning that had been lacking in the early years.


----------



## marksue

If you read all the posts you will see that a suit is the last resort.  To date we have had no communication from Marriott or the board, except for the lame email we got from Frank Knox.

All the owners want is a fair shake and we haven't gotten it yet.  So until we get what is fair, this will not stop.  I have called Marriott, written to Marriott and written to the board prior to starting this thread.  I got no responses.


----------



## marksue

Eric,

You didnt answer LoveAruba's question.  DO you work for Marriott?  You don't list owning any timeshare so it is a safe assumption to assume you do work for Marriott.  If you do, then why don't you and the rest of the company try and make things better for the people who have supported the company over the years versus trying to stick it to us with all these additional costs.


----------



## marksue

Its amazing there is still nothing from the board, except Franks lame letter. If the board wants to get respect back from the owners, I recommend the board work with a group of owners in negotiating with Marriott.  THis should be done to get a resolution that is fair to the owners.

If the board does not take this up, I wonder what they are afraid of and what they don't want the owners to know.


----------



## tlwmkw

Timeos2 is right- you have to be careful what you ask for.  Marriott has offered to pay 43% of the cost of the roof, which is a large amount of money.  If they decide to leave the resort and no longer manage then that money may disappear with them and then you will be paying 100% of the cost.

I understand your frustration at this additional expense but you will be so much better off if you try to work with Marriott and get this resolved.  If too much blood gets spilled Marriott will walk away and the resort will get a bad name and have no value at all and will suffer as a result.

I also don't own there but as a Marriott owner elsewhere I think it has ramifications for all of us.


----------



## marksue

Prior to this thread ever starting, I personally reached out to Marriott to discuss what wa taking place.  They would not respond.  I tired numerous times, even wrote to David Babich the Customer care officer and he has yet to respond.

So if Marriott wants to see this resolved then need to respond to concerned owners.  I am not the only one who has reached out to David and not heard back from him.


----------



## davidbb

*Marriott needs to take care of business*

I find this whole matter extremely wrong. 

1. Marriott should take care of the entire roof because it was delivered to us faulty. As for the assertion that 43% is fair, I question how much it has cost us so far with repairing water damage over the past years. If you add up all the repair costs, I am sure the Marriott share of roof expenses is a whole lot less than 43%.  

2. Marriott is a long term operator of timeshares. How is it possible that proper reserves for upgrades and replacement have not been collected ? Perhaps some reverse accounting needs to be done to figure out what the proper maintenance charges should have been to cover the life expectancy of a roof, a/c, lobby upgrades, etc. What would those charges be and what should Marriott have paid towards them during the sales phase when they paid the majority of the association dues ? 

3. Why does the building need $750K in caulking.  An independent engineering report needs to be done to determine if the building was properly built according to standards when the 1st unit was sold.  Marriott should be responsible for any deficiencies that occurred before that time. The building should have been brought up to 100% of current standards at that sale date.

4. Sales desk in the lobby. The lobby is owned by the owners and now that the building is fully sold the desk should disappear or a proper rent should be paid as of the date of the last unit sold.  The board needs to determine that date and bill Marriott accordingly.  Perhaps a hefty commission should be paid by Marriott for every sale/resale that happens from that desk ?

5. Dues increases. The increases should not exceed the general rate of inflation on the island.  The board should determine from the govt sources what that rate is and that should be the target.

We all know what has happened here. Marriott bought at a cheap price a deficient building. Marriott set the original budgets for dues with 2 things in mind. Keep dues low to encourage sales and to keep the Marriott share low during the sales phase. What needs to happen is an accounting of what has been spent on normal repair/maint for 10yr building vs those expenses that are related to a deficient building and the proper assignment of responsibility. It may take a law suit for this to happen. 

DOING THE RIGHT THING IS NEVER EASY OR CHEAP, BUT IT IS ALWAY THE RIGHT THING TO DO.


----------



## lovearuba

*ditto*

We are feeling the same way.  Its really sad and I just dont understand why they just dont fix these things. Its going to get much worse for them, owners are really not going to sit down for this one.  

Marksue has been doing a great job keeping this message alive.  Thanks


----------



## jyork9

AOC Board said:


> Dear Fellow Aruba Ocean Club Owner:
> 
> The Board of Directors is writing you to address a very serious rumor that has recently appeared over the internet.  This untrue rumor concerns ongoing issues at the Ocean Club and the Board’s relationship with our management company – Marriott International.
> 
> It has been almost 10 years since the Ocean Club opened.  As with any high use resort facility located in the hot, humid Caribbean climate, the facility is starting to show signs of its age.  As a result, the need for maintenance and repairs has increased over the past several years.  While the Board has been faced with a number of challenges related to the aging facility, we have been primarily focused on the replacement of the existing roof.  As many of you know all to well, we experience leaks in many parts of the resort during heavy tropical rains. The roof replacement is needed to prevent water intrusion in and damage to the building.  We are pleased to report that the roof replacement is on schedule and should be complete in early December.  The Board also recognizes and thanks Marriott for contributing its fair share to the necessary repairs.
> 
> The Board has been working hand in hand with Marriott to resolve these and other related challenges.  In the past year, the relationship between the Board and Marriott has grown stronger because of a renewed sense of cooperation, mutual understanding and improved communications.
> 
> The false rumor found on some websites alleges that the relationship between the Board and Marriott has deteriorated to the point that the Board has suggested that owners consider pursuing a class action lawsuit against Marriott.
> 
> The Board categorically denies making any such inference.  The Board is working collaboratively with our on-site management team and with Marriott.  With the arrival of Corey Guest, our own dedicated General Manger, the Board has never been more confident in the staff’s ability to provide the owners the very best vacation experience possible while at the same time, effectively and efficiently managing our property.
> 
> The hard work is not yet done… especially with the challenges brought on by hurricane Omar.  However, the Board and Marriott are moving forward together to meet those challenges with a sense of mutual respect and cooperation.



Why didn't whoever this is sign your post? I tried to find out who this was posted by, it is just a guest.


----------



## marksue

The board members will not sign the post.  Instead they hide and act as if nothing is happening. They removed their email address from the AOC website and hide behind Marriott.  If you want their email address let me know as I have them all.

I know there is a letter campaign going on now and many people are sending the board members emails about how furious they are.

Our Maintenance fees went up 35% from last year.  The 12 month average inflation through September 2008 was 9.1 % per Central Bank of Aruba.  In section 10.3 of the Ocean club governing documents states that an increase in excess of the sum of the inflation index percentage + 7.5% shall not be adopted unless approved by the majority of the members at such duly called meeting.

SO based on the governing document, the max increase we could receive is 16.6% NOT 35%.  

So to the board  Frank Knox, Stephen Richards, Melissa Pericolosi, Allan Cohen, Mike Reilly  when is the scheduled meeting for the owners to vote on the proposed Maintenance fees.  By enacting the fees without this meeting is illegal and the fees are not binding since there was no formal vote by the members.


----------



## rommanning

marksue said:


> To all Marriott Ocean Club owners.  I am not sure if you are aware but you are about to be hit with 2 assessments that could be $1,000 for each of the next 2 years.  The reason is Marriott has to completely replace the roof and some of the supports due to poor construction.
> 
> How many of you realize that the building was bought by Marriott after it was partially completed?  Of course you were never told that.  Did you ever wonder why when ever it rained the building flooded?  It seems there were problems to the roof from day one and Marriott ignored the problems until they could get the owners to pay a portion of the repairs.  Marriott is requiring the Owners to pay a major portion of the repairs.  So therefore the roof repair and regular refurbishing projects will costs us additional funds over our already high maintenance.
> 
> I have been in touch with the board and have gotten the details of what is taking place.  A board member said to me if you find a lawyer who would like to take on a class action suit there would be many people who would be willing to be part of the suit.
> 
> I have been in touch with Marriott but they have refused to give me a satisfactory response except to agree to what I have mentioned here.
> 
> If you are unhappy about this you should contact customer care.  Maybe if enough people speak up Marriott will do the right thing.
> 
> Let me know if you are interested in pursuing a class action suit against Marriott.
> 
> 
> 
> Mark


I'd be happy to join in.....this not what I signrd up for. This is why I selected Marriott in the first place..........to hopefully avoid a situation like tis in Aruba. I own 2 -2 bedroom units. One @ each Surf and Ocean Club


----------



## marksue

Please send me you email address in a PM.  We are in the process of getting 1100 weeks of ownership so that we can call a special meeting to recall the board.  In your private message to me please let me know how many weeks you own, your name and email address.

THank you

Mark


----------



## marksue

We Are Still Looking To Get Owners On The List To Recall The Board and change some of the bylaws to make the board more transparent for owners.  Please Talk To Your Friends That Own Units And Have Them Send Me Thier Email Address And The Number Of Units They Own. 

Thank You All


----------



## marksue

I just got an email from an owner who is in Aruba at this time.  It seems there was a special board meeting held last Monday.  This meeting was posted at the Ocean Club prior to the meeting.  Why were the rest of the owners, who are not in Aruba, not notified of this meeting?  How difficult would it have been to post it on the Ocean Club Website?  *According to Section 6.6 of the Governing Documents  “All meetings of the Board of Directors, including special meetings in accordance with section 6.7, shall be open to all members.  If the notice is posted only at the Ocean Club then all members have not been notified*.  Please let me know how this will be dealt with in the future to ensure all owners are aware of the meeting,

What was discussed in this meeting?  When will we receive the minutes of this meeting and the general meeting?  What is the board hiding from us?  Are they trying to keep the owners from being informed or are they trying to hide information from us?

Unfortunately, I am not surprised by the actions of this board.  Allan when he was president always kept the owners informed.  What have we heard from the new board, nothing but a lame letter from Frank that has not addressed any of the owners issues.  And now they don’t want to let owners know of special meetings that have an impact on our financial investments in Aruba.


----------



## Dave M

My personal view, as stated in a different way much earlier in this thread, is that you are overreacting and hurting your case by slamming the Board regularly instead of focusing on the single issue that you most want to have addressed and corrected (financially).

Corporate (and other entity) boards meet often without notifying all investors or owners, unless required to do so by the Bylaws, such as is normally the case for an annual meeting. Unless the governing documents for your resort have additional language regarding notifying ALL owners in advance, there is no requirement to do so. Requiring that Board meetings be open is much different from requiring that all owners be notified of a Board meeting. Also, notifying all owners might well take enough time that an emergency meeting might have to be delayed beyond when some urgent action needs to be taken. 

My guess is that one or more board members were hooked into the meeting via phone so that the meeting could be held expeditiously. As you stated, there was a notice posted. Thus, any owner who was at the resort could have attended. If one of those happened to be a TUGger, there would likely have been a post here about what happened in the meeting. With such a notice being posted, even though the notifications didn't meet your personal requirements, how is the Board  "hiding" info from you?

Your crusade is laudable. But don't lose sight of your objective.


----------



## Dave M

Adding...

None of the Marriott resorts at which I own notify owners in advance of all Board meetings that will be held. The only notice I get is for the annual meeting. Does that mean those boards are trying to hide something from owners? I don't think so.


----------



## marksue

Dave, I understand what you are saying, but the governing documents state all meetings are to be open for all owners.  How can it be open to all owners if we are not notified?

The board has been unresponsive to many members who have written to them.  I can tell you I have hundreds of emails from people who have been trying to reach the board and not heard one word.  I have been to the owners meeting and hard questions asked by owners were ignored, so it seems obvious we are not being told everything.

I am more than willing to speak with you privately, but I do believe, based on experience,  there is a lack of information being shared with owners.


----------



## marksue

*Open letter to the AOC Board*

The following letter has been sent earlier this week to the board of the Aruba Ocean Club and the Customer Care office of MVCI.

To all Board members,

I am sure you are all aware how I and other owners feel in regards to the outrageous fees you are trying to charge owners of the Ocean Club as well as your siding with Marriott on the costs of bringing the Ocean Club up to the standard it should have been when it was selling the units.

1) As for the increase in our annual fees.  For the 1 bedroom units the increase amounts to 27%, this does not include the reserve fund fees.  Based on the governing document you may increase the fees by 7.5% above the inflation rate, (which is an annualized 9.1%) without a vote by the owners.  I am asking to know when that vote will occur, since you have exceeded the allowed percentage.

2) Marriott sold to all of us a defective building, it has leaked since day , due to a poor roof and lack of waterproofing of the building.  Why is it now we are saying the roof needs to be replaced, when it should have been replaced prior to final construction?  Why is Marriott not paying for this replacement since they did not fully disclose to the owners what they were buying?  Why is Marriott refusing to pay for the entire roof?

3) Why have we the owners had to foot the bill since day 1 for all the repairs due to do the roof and lack of waterproofing of the building?  Please provide to all of us a detail list of expenses the owners have incurred due to these issues.

4) Why is it the Ocean Club was the only building to sustain such extensive damage due to TS Omar?  The Surf Club and hotel had no such damage.

5) You are representatives of the owners, yet you fail to respond to questions, emails and letters sent to you.  This was not the way things were handled when Allan was President.  Why are you not representing owners in the discussions with Marriott.  I was at the owners meeting and there was a lack of respect to the owners and it was clear that it was a meeting supporting Marriott and not the owners.

6) Why have we not received fair payment for the space leased by Marriott and other vendors.  Why does Marriott feel they do not have to pay a fair price for renting space in the Ocean Club.  We the owners deserve to see the accounting of all payments by Marriott and the other vendors.  Also a report showing how the revenues we are receiving compare to the average for other similar resorts.

7) Knowing we were having financial problems why would we increase our expenses by hiring a dedicated GM versus continuing to share with the Surf Club?  This was not a fiscally responsible move and we should look to going back and utilizing a shared resource.

8) I am recommending that a group of owners work with the board to negotiate a fair and equitable agreement with Marriott for the roof costs, payment back to the Ocean Club for the repair work paid for by owners, and fair compensation for use of Ocean Club space.

I do believe that if the above items are addressed and resolved in an equitable way that the fees and assessments we are being asked to pay can and will be reduced.

I would hope we the owners will get the courtesy we deserve, having elected you to the board, with answers and actions to the questions listed above.

An owner of multiple units who is angry.

Mark


----------



## Dave M

marksue said:


> How can it be open to all owners if we are not notified?


See my two most recent posts for the answer. 

By comparison, many states and municipalities have "open meeting" laws, requiring that meetings of various government bodies be open to all. However, it would be a very unusual law that would require all residents, voters or property owners (or choose your own category) to be notified about every such meeting that is going to be held. 

The same is true in the corporate and HOA world. Homeowners' boards have many meetings, some regularly scheduled and some on short notice (often via phone hookup). It would be rare for a homeowner's Board - at least in the Marriott family of resorts - to notify all owners of every such meeting. Just because you want such advance notice doesn't make it wrong for them not to give you the advance notice. 

That's an example of why I think you're missing the mark on your target. The problem isn't with me. It's that you may lose or may have lost credibility with Marriott and or the HOA board in your hopes of getting them to be responsive. It's been made clear here many times that Marriott has people - some key people - that check in on this forum. In that regard, I believe someone who complains about a specific problem, explains good reasons for the problem and has a specific recommendation for a solution will be taken much more seriously than someone who appears to take every opportunity to blast the very people that you hope will eventually help you.  

I have interrupted your thread too much already. I'll back away again.


----------



## marksue

Dave,

I am going by the governing document section 6.6 for the Aruba Ocean club. Prior this thread and others there were many attempts to speak with marriott in regards to the issues posted here.  Messages were left, emails were sent  and no responses where had from the board or from Marriott.   That led to these posts.  

Since you are not an owner at the Ocean Club, I am not sure you fully understand the magnitude of the issue and the anger of owners. Like I said I have hundreds of emails and the new MF havent even been mailed yet.

I had to go through Mr. Marriott's office just to get a call with someone from MVCI next week since they have refused to answer emails or phone messages from me and other owners.  Do you know how many owners have written to Frank and not gotten a response from him?  In the past if you sent Allan Cohen an email you got a timely response.  You have to wonder what is going on.

If you would have attended the owners meeting and heard Dirk say to an owner, who had questions about the construction and high fees, well then maybe you should just sell, then you would understand the anger from many folks and why we want changes.

I am sure Marriott is watching these posts, but if they really cared about thier name and treating people right then they would reach out as I have asked in numerous posts to the owners.  *I have suggested many times to have a group of owners work with the board to negotiate a settlement with marriott that is fair and equitalble for the owners.*

Marriott has my number and they are free to call me at anytime for a conversation.  


There


----------



## JimC

The owners have what appear to be legitimate concerns and clear frustration.  But some of your frustration is likely from the approach you all have taken.  Accusing the Board of improprieties and threatening legal action is not going to advance your cause in a constructive way.  Even if your accusations are true and ultimately there needs to be legal redress of your grievances; opening as you have complicates negotiations.

I am not surprised that the HOA would have meetings on an ad-hoc basis.  As Dave mentioned, much governance in any enterprise is done via conference calls and special meetings as issues arise for which management wants guidance or approval of proposed actions.  I do not believe posting notice of such meetings on a web-site is necessary.  Posting in the resort so those owners on property at the time have the opportunity to attend would be sufficient in my opinion.

I don't know what the release schedule is for maintenance fees.  I know that I still have not received my Canyon Villas statement.  Granted it would be nice to have all resorts finalized and released at the same time.  But there may be practical reasons why that is not done.

I hope you all can resolve this amicably and to your mutual satisfaction.


----------



## bogey21

modoaruba said:


> For Marriott it would be wisefull to weigh out the expense costs versus the negative advertisement.



They probably did this and decided it was to their advantage to screw the owners just like they did when they unilaterally changed their rental and resale programs notwithstanding that they used both as selling points to prospective purchasers.

George


----------



## vincenzi

*Marriott Stand Up to Your Good Name*

We purchased our units because of the high standards of Marriott.  We felt if we did our part as an owner, that Marriott would do their part. The fact that Marriott did not disclose all of the information concerning the defective building is very disturbing and is so contrary to my previous high opinion of them. It is for this very reason that we as owners are having to pay such outrageous fees.Of course, it all comes down to one thing...money.  Marriott, how much is your name worth to you?  Are you willing to allow many owners who in good faith purchased from you loose their units because they simply can't afford the outrageous fees and assessment? We hope not.  We appeal to you to do what is necessary in order to keep your good name and principles you stand for.


----------



## wfillion

*Why has this gone so terribly wrong?*

First and foremost, I am borrowing another users' login id to post this message as it is a clear indication that I have been notified by this individual concerning the dissention between parties.  Having said that, the user who's id I borrowed to post this is not a Marriott owner and yet he is aware of these issues and as so is passing this on to other members and non-members.  Good news and good services don't carry nearly as much weight as bad news and bad services.  I too have multiple units with Marriott at the Ocean club and at this juncture of our economic crisis both nationally and worldly, I could easily do without the additional outlay of cash.  Marriott needs to understand that this is a clear case of correcting, at their expense, those issues associated with the building that is clearly being debated whether they are responsible or not.  Why you ask, simple economics... Supply and Demand, if you lower the demand for units (bad publicity) than supply will increase and the overall costs/value will deminish.  If a non-Marriott user is well aware of this issue in Aruba than word is spreading rather quickly.  I have no problem selling my units (at a discount from what I bought for but, I will avoid paying special assessments and maintance fees) and  that will make up the difference for what I sell for.  I am not married to Marriott although they presented that buildling like a formal proposal for marriage (a lot of hidden flaws masked by a lot of fluff and excitement). As I work in the real estate business in the US, I am very familiar with just how simple it is for owners to walk away from paying dues, loans, fees with very little recourse from the original or current creditors. This is certainly not my intention however, if they are going to squeeze us owners I will have no problem dumping them and passing on their mode of conduct and responsibility.  This is sad as  I used to swear to all how great they were.  All Marriott needs is a reduction of 20% ownership world wide and their empire will sink. While it doesn't sound so possible think of this, with unemployment reaching record levels, fuel costs still high, people loosing trilliions of dollars in the stock market, credit issues, real estate debacle, etc., time shares are one of the first items owners walk away from when money is tight.  Take a look at their stock, in January of 08 it was in the upper 30's, Friday, 11/21/08 it closed at $12.92.  I would suggest Marriott do what ever it can to rectify this at their own costs and not pass it along (at any time) to the owners. Maybe this is childish and immature but so is their lack of stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility for issues that cleary were theirs to start with.
I would much rather pass on to potential owners of timeshares a story like this with an ending that gave people a sense of pride and security in owning a Marriott property knowing they stand behind their name.

Please do not respond to me directly as I indicated this is a borrowed id, only respond to the generallity of the paragraph.


----------



## Luckybee

When hubby and I first went to look at the Ocean Club it was still being built. We asked about the structure since the shell had been up for a couple of years ( it was originally to have been a different resort which went belly up) . The first sales rep gave us all the assurances about Marriott not putting their name on a product that wasnt sound, that their engineers had flown in from Florida and thouroughly checked everything etc etc. We didnt buy that year(well we did but rescinded), then bought the next year after we saw the final product. Within a year or 2 the problems began. I vaguely remember one of the exit staircases leaking and crumbling away rather quickly. 
  Up until now we always felt relaxed knowing that the problems would be taken care of both for the members benefit, as well as for Marriott. We simply moseyed along using our weeks most years, trading only 2x when medical issues aros. With the recent ouster of Allen Cohen I can no longer say I feel comfortable with the knowledge that someone is looking out for the members. 
  Someone earlier in the post stated that that isnt the main issue. Quite frankly for me it is in this sense. I think it is very indicative that a serious problem exsists or this wouldn't have happened. I think that anyone who has had dealings with Allan in the past would know that he always responded quite quickly to every owner who contacted him, and was a true rep for the owner. I would not have been concerned about board meeting, and not being notified when he was there because I knew we were looked after. Now Im wondering who is minding the store and why isnt the person who is representing our interests responding to enquiries. Whether there is a threat of legal action or not the president is supposed to be looking out for the interests of the members. If he isnt then he shouldnt be president, pure and simple. At this point we simply dont know where he stands on all of this.


----------



## timeos2

*No way they will pay 100%*

Sorry but the statute ran out years ago on 100% Marriott coverage of a roof. When the Association accepted the building the clock ran - usually for a year maybe two - then its the condo associations problem.  The 43% they are offering is already more than I would expect and if that gets pushed too far the owners are likely to find themselves paying it all.  Be careful what you push for. You are represented by the Board. If they didn't find fault in years 2-7 or beyond and push for repairs/replacement it would seem to be too late to get it now. Work for a REASONABLE settlement not 100% of everything you can think of.


----------



## vincenzi

*If It Walks Like a Duck...*



Luckybee said:


> . With the recent ouster of Allen Cohen I can no longer say I feel comfortable with the knowledge that someone is looking out for the members.
> Someone earlier in the post stated that that isnt the main issue. Quite frankly for me it is in this sense. I think it is very indicative that a serious problem exsists or this wouldn't have happened. I think that anyone who has had dealings with Allan in the past would know that he always responded quite quickly to every owner who contacted him, and was a true rep for the owner.
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly with Luckybee with the comments about Allan Cohen.  Kudos to Allan Cohen.  He is forthright and accessible.  Allan, thank you.  Thank you!!!
> 
> Unfortunately, things have changed.  If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...it's a duck!
> 
> But, I have hope.  As the expression goes, "There is nothing quite as constant as change."  I have faith that Marriott and our Board upon reconsidering this matter will change their minds and direction and do what is honest and ethical.


----------



## marksue

Timeos,  Not being an Ocean CLub owner, you do not fully understand what is going on.  FIrst of all there is no statue of limitation on deceptive practives such as failing to disclose they did not build the Ocean Club.  THey actually told you in the sales meetings that Marriott only builds quailty.

If Marriott is willing to gamble thier name by not treating owners properly then it will be there problem.

I have heard from a few owners who are going to walk from thier units.  Word of this will get around and it will impace the entire Marriott system.  THis is not a threat just a fact of what happens when negativity towards companies spread.


----------



## Sunbum

I *am* an owner at the Ocean Club and i tend to agree with Timeos2. If we ask for too much, we could end up empty handed. I have owned many differant bussiness over the years and i am surprised they are comming to the party at all. Sure, i would like for them to pay 100%, but that is not going to happen nor should it. "Reasonable" is the key word here.

I also agree wholeheartedly with the others about Allan Cohen. Thank you Alan!!


----------



## Dave M

I don't believe any negative publicity surrounding this issue will have any significant impact on Marriott's reputation. Lawsuits and complaints come and go and the huge hospitality company that Marriott is moves on.

As one simple example, I was a guest at the Bermuda Marriott about 10 years ago and became very ill with a gastrointestinal illness. Hundreds were sickened. I found out that Marriott knew there was a possibility that their private water supply was contaminated. Yet they continued to deny any responsibility - in spite of numerous articles about the problem in the local media and in the New York Times. 

The hotel closed temporarily, lawsuits were filed and, a few months later, the hotel closed permanently. 

Guess what? No one who matters even remembers that such an event occurred.

No matter what the outcome, this too will pass for Marriott.

Funny thing about those who claim they will walk away from their units. Those who are considering such an action should carefully review the section of the CC&Rs that discusses the owner’s responsibility to pay MFs, including all costs that the HOA incurs for collection. Legal fees can add up in a hurry for each owner and credit scores for those who refuse to pay may well dive. It’s a well-established legal principle that a condominium or timeshare owner can’t legally withhold payment because of a dispute with management or the HOA.

There is some excellent advice in recent posts in this thread. I'm not optimistic it will be heeded.


----------



## lovearuba

*your advise*

Hi Dave
I do believe a lot of good advise has been provided here.  I also think a lot of folks are afraid to stand up for what they believe in because of repurcussions or because we are so used to accepting less than we deserve that we've become jaded. 

This is a very emotional issue for the owners of these units.  We have written a letter to the board.  At this point there are a lot of letters that were sent, some personalized and some using the draft I put together.  The sad thing is no one has heard from them.  Not even a courtesy note indicating the letter was received and they would be reviewing it. Phone calls have been made that were unanswered.  

The letter was factual and requested the board to answer our inquiries on what actions they were taking to address our concerns. It was not disrespectful although it was direct.  If other owners wanted to personalize it, they were given the opportunity.  Some just wanted to send a short email.  They all have a right to ask for answers.  

We the owners have the right to ask these questions and the board has a responsibility working on our behalf to answer them.  So that is step one.  If no response is received what is your advise.  Shall we just forget it because we have no hope of getting these resolved?  I really am curious as to what you believe is the next action needed.  

Thank you for your candor.


----------



## Eric

Dave is right. If you believe this will have ANY impact on Marriott, you are sadly mistaken. Regardless of the outcome, in 6 months, nobody will remember !! Instead of pie in the sky demands that will never happen, take the somewhat fair offer and move on or sell. 



marksue said:


> I have heard from a few owners who are going to walk from thier units.  Word of this will get around and it will impace the entire Marriott system.  THis is not a threat just a fact of what happens when negativity towards companies spread.


----------



## lovearuba

*ERIC the Marriott rep*

Nice to hear you are still weighing in Eric, we all know you work for Marriott


----------



## pianodinosaur

Eric said:


> Dave is right. If you believe this will have ANY impact on Marriott, you are sadly mistaken. Regardless of the outcome, in 6 months, nobody will remember !! Instead of pie in the sky demands that will never happen, take the somewhat fair offer and move on or sell.



Eric: Dave's points are very well taken.  However, in 6 months the people who have been treated poorly will still remember that they have been treated poorly. Although I am not an owner of a Marriott TS, I do stay at Marriott hotels and participate in Marriott Rewards. An issue like this affects the entire TS industry. This is a very active thread in an extremely popular website.  I understand that Marriott cannot please 100% of the people 100% of the time.  Marriott is a big company and this may not have any impact on Marriott. However, there are numerous owners who may not share Marriott's definitions of a "somewhat fair offer" and "pie in the sky demands".  I hope that this conflict will be satisfactorily resolved outside the courtroom.


----------



## vincenzi

*Marriott's Founder...A Great Man*

I have been reading a little bit about the background of the founder of Marriott, John Willard Marriott.  Before his death, he summed up his philosophy of life,  "A man should keep on being constructive, and do constructive things. He should take part in the things that go on in this wonderful world. He should be someone to be reckoned with. He should live life and make every day count, to the very end. Sometimes it's tough. But that's what I'm going to do."

He was a man of great integrity and set the bar high for his descendants.  He valued his customers.  We don't expect "pie in the sky".  We expect you to do what is right. Sometimes it's tough...but that's what we hope you will do.


----------



## lweverett

I have to question your animosity to the present board and president while, at the same time, you express  support for, and satisfaction with, prior boards and officers.  The current president may be unresponsive to you missives, but wasn't it prior boards that did not accumulate enough of a reserve for these repairs and the refurbishment?


----------



## Eric

I actually own at the Surf Club even though I am not sure it matters. Its been my experience many people who work for Marriott have no problem ripping them up so why would it matter. Would you feel better if I said Marriott should give you all your money back and give you free weeks etc like others have suggested ? Dave is about as diplomatic as they come but the bottom line is most suggestions/demands/attitudes have been less than professional. As MANY people have pointed out, suggesting the HOA is in Marriott's pocket and threating lawsuits is probably the worst route to take so good luck with that. 




lovearuba said:


> Nice to hear you are still weighing in Eric, we all know you work for Marriott


----------



## Luckybee

lweverett said:


> I have to question your animosity to the present board and president while, at the same time, you express  support for, and satisfaction with, prior boards and officers.  The current president may be unresponsive to you missives, but wasn't it prior boards that did not accumulate enough of a reserve for these repairs and the refurbishment?



That isnt the case at all. The prior board president(who is still on the board now...but who knows for how long if Marriott has its way) and the previous board were basing reserves on what info they were provided by Marriott. Do not forget for a second that most of the figures and projections are based on info provided by Marriott people, certainly in the beginnig and to some extent even now. Only in the last couple of years have certain things begun coming to light. A perfect example of this is the 5 year status of the roof when the timeshares were sold by Marriott. The board was only made aware of this in the most recent past. If this was hidden then how could the board have known. Why in heavens name do you think that Marriott is agreeing to pay "a portion" of the refurbishment costs?  When many things were questioned by the previous president and he began pushing for answers on behalf of the owners and providing information to the owners Marriott stepped in and tried to quelch things. By many of the recent actions it has become abundantly clear that Marriott and some of the members of the current board do not want owners to have any of this information. IMHO that is simply wrong and  promote a great deal of mistrust. I find it quite strange that the most important thing to Marriott and the current board is to keep info from owners. Think of it this way...if you lived in a condo, and your maintenance fees were changing dramatically, but your board refused to discuss why would you not be concerned. To me it is the veil of secrecy that is most disconcerting.
Why would Marriott(and the current president and some members ) not want the owners to have all info? If one is trying to hide something that usually means there is something to hide. If the board and Marriott were operating openly dh and I would likely simply just "deal" . We are fortunately in a position where the increase isnt going to affect us. Many others are not so fortunate. 

My concern is with the bigger picture which is quite frankly one of open and honest dealings. From all reports, the new president and board feels they have to account only to Marriott and not the owners. For heavens sake....Marriott is the management company FOR THE OWNERS!!! Mariott is NOT the owner, this is not one of their hotels. It is supposed to be our board. They should be telling it like it is to the owners who they are responsible to, explaining the situation honestly, not hiding, and prepared to deal with whatever flack there is. There's an old adage...if you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

This may or may not be a case for legal action, personally I quite frankly havent formulated my opinion on that just yet, but it isnt that difficult to get enough members involved to call for a meeting and I would suspect that those who are involved in this process are well on there way to so doing...it is perhaps time to change some of the bylaws to prevent this kind of nonsense from ever taking place again(and again by a perusal of the bylaws that also isnt that difficult). It may not have an effect on either the special assesment or the maintenance fees but it very well could have an effect on the way the board is run in the future.


----------



## Luckybee

Eric said:


> As MANY people have pointed out, suggesting the HOA is in Marriott's pocket and threating lawsuits is probably the worst route to take so good luck with that.



Call it a hunch but I think for MANY of the owners getting to the bottom of what exactly is going on is in fact the main priority. I dont know if the board is in "Marriott's pocket" but I do know that something isnt passing the smell test and that does concern me. If you are an owner of a Marriott timeshare anywhere as you say,  it should concern you as well.  I wont question what you say about being an owner but having just read many of your previous posts re: Marriott let me just say that I can understand why a previous poster thought you might work for them...lol


----------



## lovearuba

*Right on target*

Luckybee you are hitting the nail on the head.  We expect to pay increases in maintence fees but we also expect an accounting for why we are paying these huge increases.  We are entitled to explanations and expect to only pay for our expenses.  I am hearing that Marriott may be starting to take phone calls on the situation so if you are one of the folks that has been trying to contact them via phone please try again.  The contact number is in my email to the owners.  If you are an owner and would like the number please send me a pm and I will forward it along.  Lets keep this alive so we can get some resolution.  Thanks


----------



## marksue

In the past the board, specifically the president of the board was open with owners.  He would send out emails and take phone calls from owners to address their concerns.  He always gave us a heads up on what was upcoming.  Since he has been forced out, for being owner focused is my guess, there has been a complete feeling of secrecy.  The new president does not respond to people's emails or calls.  Additionally, if you attended the owners meeting, it was obvious the owners were not concern of the board, but Marriott was.  Most questions addressed to the board, were answered by Marriott.  When the board members did speak, I swore I was listening to Marriott.  In fact our treasurer started her speech about how great Marriott is and what they did for her FL timeshare which she is president.

This is why the owners feel like they are being treated unfairly and are looking for more transparency as well as equitable treatment when it comes to paying the fees.  

I am sure not being an owner makes it difficult to understand what we re all going through and why you feel we should just go away.  We won't go away until we are treated fairly and there is openness from the board.

I have suggested that there be a team of owners that work with the board in the negotiations with Marriott.  I believe having owners not tied to the boar without strings of Marriott can and will help drive an equitable solution.  Once this is done, then we need to address the by-laws to ensure transparency.


----------



## billymach4

*What would annoy me!!!!*

I love Aruba, I have visited AOC, I have stayed at ASC. Aruba is a great place. You folks bought in there to enjoy a vacation. Not to do battle with your Board or Marriott management. 

How can you possibly enjoy your vacation experience with all of this external static from the Board and Marriott??? 

It is really a sour situation for all parties. I wish you all the best of luck!:annoyed:


----------



## Eric

Hopefully Marriott will answer your questions sooner rather than later 



Luckybee said:


> Call it a hunch but I think for MANY of the owners getting to the bottom of what exactly is going on is in fact the main priority. I dont know if the board is in "Marriott's pocket" but I do know that something isnt passing the smell test and that does concern me. If you are an owner of a Marriott timeshare anywhere as you say,  it should concern you as well.  I wont question what you say about being an owner but having just read many of your previous posts re: Marriott let me just say that I can understand why a previous poster thought you might work for them...lol


----------



## marksue

The collection of names for calling a special meeting is growing.  Please continue to let those who own get a hold of me.  I have from someone in Aruba now that owners are very upset with what is taking place.  I know my contact information has been handed out so I expect to hear from folks when they return.

There have also been contact to Marriott corporate and I hear what occurred.  The last I had heard is Marriott corporate is now looking into this issue. 

I have also have placed a call into Marriott and had a follow up call with David Babich.  I am expecting another call with them to listen to what they have to say.  So far everything I have heard is the same thing as from the owners meeting.  What Marriott does not understand is that they sold us a defective builidng and owe it to the owners to make good on thier deceptive sales practices in not revealing this information.  

I did suggest that there be owners working with the board in the negotiations with marriott to add transparency to the process.


----------



## lovearuba

*recent travelers*

Hi
I also heard from an owner who recently stayed at the Marriott Aruba Ocean, she said people were pretty angry with the situation and really upset with the beach condition.  Its a lot worse in the surf club area and those owners should be looking for Marriott to address that quickly.  I took a look at trip advisor recent reviews of the surf and no one is happy with the beach situation, they are referring to it as sewerage.  I almost changed my trade request from the ocean club to the surf but after reading those reviews decided it was not a good move.

Time for both surf and ocean club owners to ask Marriott to address this, if you dont have a good beach area there is no point in owning in Aruba.


----------



## modoaruba

*roof*

Hi,
Just got in yesterday to the OC.
Manager told us that the roof is going to be paid for by the insurance 100%.
No charge to the owners.


----------



## lovearuba

*Roof being paid by Marriott*

That is good news.  I wonder how we could confirm that one.  Hope it reduces the planned increase in maintenance fees to a reasonable amount, maybe one we can afford!!!!


----------



## vincenzi

*How Can We Confirm This Good News*



modoaruba said:


> Hi,
> Just got in yesterday to the OC.
> Manager told us that the roof is going to be paid for by the insurance 100%.
> No charge to the owners.



That is terrific news!  How CAN we confirm it?


----------



## vincenzi

*The News About the Roof is Incorrect*

I e-mailed the manager, Corey Guest, of the Marriott Aruba Ocean Club.  Has has responded.  I have copied and pasted what he wrote to me.

(email contents removed at request of marriott, personal emails sent to members from marriott staff all contain a confidentiality clause at the bottom of the emails that prevent redistribution of the email content publicly and thus cannot repost the comments verbatim)


----------



## marksue

I do not believe Insurance is going to cover the roof.  Unless it is a deceptive practice insurance policy.  There was never any indication that insurance even came into play and my conversation last week with representatives from MVCI gave no indication insurance was even in play.

Corey's response is just the typical Marriott response.  They will not tell us the roof was subpar and leaking from day one.  Talk to the maintenance people at the Ocean club and ask them about all the sheetrock they have had to replace over the years due to leakage.  I have spoken to people who have spoken to the maint people and we have gotten consistent information

And I supposed the lack of waterproofing of the building is normal wear as well.  Come on Corey, board and Marriott please start telling the truth to the owners. We are not fools who believe the half truths and Marriott propaganda.  Frank Knox is totally unresponsive to every owner.  I have emails from at lest 50 people who have written to him and not gotten a single response.  Frank do us all a favor and resign the presidency.  We the owners are used to being heard and responded to.  Allan knew how to interact with owners and provide truths to us when he was president.

Open requests to the board to have an a group of owners participate in negotiations has been totally ignored.  Wait until the new fees come out and see the uproar at that time.


----------



## modoaruba

*roof*

I am very confused as to what the manager told us and what is being said in response to our post. We will get the manager's name when we see him(We did not get it when we arrived) and ask him again as to what he told us.
We will post as soon as we get a response.
Why would he tell us so if it is not so knowing that we can check the info?


----------



## lovearuba

*modoaruba*

Hi
Dont lose sight of the fact that you are on vacation and should be enjoying yourself.  How is the beach area?


----------



## Munday

Look at your disclosure booklet which states maintenance fees will not increase over 7% during ownership.  I questioned increasing rates for the past few years when our fees escalated over that 7%. Alas, there is some subsequent language that could allow for an increase over that percentage, but it might be worth looking into if you're considering a class action suit.  Additionally, has anyone ever thought about the fact that the Marriott OC staff are paid in Florens; yet I believe the Association monies are banked in American banks.  With the American dollar worth more than Florens, shouldn't the Association fees be gaining considerable interest while not spending as much on contractors, staff, etc.?  I'm just a simple minded person, but I know my grocery bill in Aruba was cut almost in half when I paid in American money.  Lastly, many thanks to Allan Cohen who functioned very well as our former President and did everything he could to make our ownership meaningful.


----------



## modoaruba

*beach*

Full during later in the AM.
Ocean water smells bad.
We never smelled it that bad.
Since the pool was redone its GREAT!
Very clean and refreshing.
Enjoying our stay regardless--NO SNOW!


----------



## jm2020

*General Comment to all Ocean Club Complainers*

I have read all the concerns and complaints regarding the Marriott Aruba Ocean Club.

First, I agree with most all of it, no question. However, these postings and complaints do absolutely nothing to solve the problems.

If there is an ACTION PLAN to go after the solutions you can count me in 110%. Just bitching doesn't do it and without action the new AOC Board and Marriott will have their way and screw the Owners. Period.


----------



## lovearuba

*jm2020*

I agree with you that bitching doesnt work but we have written letters with no resolution, the intention of this post is to keep this active.  Marksue is working on this by getting as many folks as possible to contact Marriott.  Have you done anything to resolve the issue or are you just planning on criticizing others.  Have you signed up to keep the number growing so we can get enough owners to take a special vote?


----------



## Jay12

*Roof*

I was at an owners meeting at the AOC last Tuesday and I heard Corey Guest say Marriott was going to pay for 44% of the roof replacement. I don't know where this 100% came from. I would like to believe it is true, but I have my doubts.


----------



## modoaruba

*roof*

The manager at the front desk told us when we arrived this Sunay that 
he had been at the meeting and understood that the roof will be 
covered 100% by Marriott . Something to do with being defective
and working it out with some insurance.He was not very specific.

I just confronted him today with conflicting information that is
being posted.He is checking this out and will contact me soon I hope.

He also said that the fees were going up due to low reserves and the
need for renovations.

Do we really need hand blown chandoliers?


----------



## marksue

Read my posts through out this thread.  THe facts are here.   Marriott is screwing the owners big time.  I am telling people to not buy Marriott timeshare. I am letting them know what is going onin Aruba.  Marriott doesnt care about us, why should we care about them.

By the way I have over 500 units all ready as we are looking to get to 1100 to call a special meeting.  Please keep the names nd number of units you own coming.  We will get to 1100 soon.


----------



## modoaruba

*food for thought*

Anyone look at the economy?
100's of thousands of jobs are being lost.
Who's buying a car?
How many people are being denied loans?

Who is taking out a home equity loan to refurbish their home?

Every job is at risk and every business is taking a hit.

Is now a good time to ask owners for more money to refurbish a time share?

How about at least waiting for things to turn around.

Who is going to BAIL OUT our fellow owners who bought in good faith and now will not be able to afford a grotesque increase.

Let's not let our board make the choices with our money without consulting the owners at least on a ballot.
This is not Washington! Look and learn as to what they have done.


----------



## marksue

Let's be realistic.  The board of the Ocean Club could care less about the owners.  They know the uproar around the upcoming MF increase and has yet to reach out to the owners.  When you send an email to Frank Knox, the so called president, he passes it on to Corey to answer or just ignores the emails sent to him. If you don't like this Frank, be responsive to the owners.  Allan Cohen knew how to be a president of a Board that had 11,000 members. So instead of forcing him out, you should have learned from him prior to taking over.

I have heard from owners who are going to walk away from their units due to the increase and assessments. I have a feeling these increases are going to severely impact the long term survival of the Ocean Club as owners walk away from units.

I have said before and will say it again, if the board wants to regain the trust of the owners then I recommend that they negotiate with Marriott and have other owners be part of the negotiations.  I have proposed this to MVCI's, David Babich, as well as Troy and Dirk Marriott members on the board on a phone conversation.  They promised to get back to me and guess what not a word.  They were also going to talk to the board about holding off on the renovations until their was improvement in the economy.   They also promised to sit with me and review the financials and again not a word back and it has been over 3 weeks.  I post this now because I was giving them the benefit of the doubt that we could continue the dialogue, but it is obvious they thought that they could keep me quiet by making false promises.

This experience is just reinforcing that Marriott and MVCI just does not care about the owners.  Anyone reading this and thinking of buying a Marriott timeshare should give it second thoughts.  I would not recommend anyone buy a timeshare from Marriott.


----------



## marksue

I got this from an owner who had written to Corey,  This confirms my statement above 

"One of the goals with the recreation of the General Manager position is for me to be the primary contact with the 8,500+ owners as Board members serve on a volunteer basis and have other jobs and responsibilities along with the governance of Ocean Club. Of course, if I am unable to answer any specific question you may have I will forward it along to either Marriott or the Board depending on they type of question."

If the board does not want to respond to owners, then step down and put in people who will respond.  Making Corey the messenger is the cowardly approach.


----------



## modoaruba

In response to your mentioning that owners will walk away from their units,
Isn't it no different than the SUBPRIME mortgages?
These owners were used to pay a given amount and all of a sudden WHAM!

The timing of the increase could not have been planned any better.


----------



## modoaruba

*roof*

Just got word from the manager I spoke to past Sunday.
He says he was misinformed as to who pays what for the roof.
It stands that Marriott IS only paying 43% as stated in numerous posts.
Sorry for the bit of hope I shared with all.


----------



## marksue

Not a problem.  I find it quite funny that he said he was misinformed as he has been telling everyone else the real story since day 1 and he was at the Owners meeting.

I think he was trying to keep you quite, and from speaking to other owners, on how we are all being taken to the cleaners by Marriott.

I know the Class Action Suit is the last thing we want to do, but I spoke to an attorney on Saturday and have another meeting Monday or Tuesday but we are moving forward in creating the class action suit.  Marriott has been unresponsive to date, and MVCI couldnt care less about us.  The deceptive sales practice, the defective building, the repairs paid by owners since the opening of the OCean club and other items not yet publicized in this blog will be the basis of the suit.  Stay tuned as soon as I am given permission by the lawyers to release more information I will.  All Ocean Club Owners will be quite interested in knowing what other information is coming out.

Hopefully it can be avoided, but if there is a suit Marriott can only blame themselves.


----------



## bogey21

marksue said:


> Let's be realistic......This experience is just reinforcing that Marriott and MVCI just does not care about the owners.  Anyone reading this and thinking of buying a Marriott timeshare should give it second thoughts.  I would not recommend anyone buy a timeshare from Marriott.



I sold my four Marriotts years ago just for this reason.  I'm glad I did.  I had purchased three of the four directly from Marriott and the fourth resale.  I actually broke about even or came out a little bit ahead.   I swore I would never go back, but at today's liquidation prices and the right resort with a reasonable MF, maybe I should never have said never.  

George


----------



## marksue

Ok, I just got the newsletter from Frank Knox.  I am giving some highlights, but will provide a more in-depth analysis after a complete review.

 I was wrong about the MF, THEY ARE ACTUALLY HIGHER THAN ANNOUCED AT THE OWNERS MEETING.  1 BEDROOM UNIT IS $1257 AND THE 2 BEDROOM IS 1697.  Of course they dont tell you the total amount  Don't they think we can add.  The cost for a 1 bedroom is more than a 2 bedroom in the surf club.  What is wrong with this picture?  THe value of a resale for the OCean Club is now nothing.  WHy should anyone by a 1 bedroom unit in the ocean club and may more than the 2 bedrooms in the surf club.  The assesment for this year did go down $50, but there was no mention of the assesment for next year, which was already announced.  Will the $50 appear next year?

Frank also says the roof was not defective.  Frank, give us a break, do you really think we believe that.  We are not idiots.  The roof has leaked from day 1, what do you call a roof that leaks from day 1, NORMAL?  How about sending out to all owners the consultants report on the building.  THis is the same consultant who we paid for.

The board no longer wants to be communicated with.  They want all communications to go directly to the general manager Corey.  If anyone wants the boards email address I will send to you.  Since Allan was forced out as president we the owners have no transparency as to what is going on and the board, elected by the owners, is further shielding themselves from the owners.

It is quite this document was written by Marriott.

More to follow.


----------



## modoaruba

There are now at least 8 listings with redweek.com for this month which
range from the rental prices of $600-$890.

And they want how much for MFs?


----------



## lovearuba

*two bedroom unit*

My expense for 2009 is $2336.85.  Ouch!  Its obvious that Marriott is going to do this to the other timeshares because they obviously are not making as much money through the sales of timeshares so the owners are footing the bill.

For those of you that own other Marriotts, mark my words, if Marriott gets away with this your fees are going up as well. You just might have to wait until next year.


----------



## modoaruba

I have a family member who is a producer for a major network's evening
news program.

I will run this story by to see if it is newsworthy to expose what is going on.

From what I understand, recently there was a program exposing how timeshares are not what they seem to be.

This story would be a good follow-up


----------



## lovearuba

*agreed*

Hi
I am glad that you may be able to get some much needed exposure on what Marriott is doing to us.  If we publicize these deceptive practices we may hurt our chances of selling our timeshares but Marriott will be hurt a lot harder by the public opinion this type of publicity can bring.  I am also going to write a letter to my local area station and send them the links to this website.  They may find this situation newsworthy as well.  We have a consumer advocate section that generally gets good resolution to unfair business practices once the light is shed on the issue and the culprits.


----------



## cdziuba

I am not a Marriott owner, but have a close family member who does own at the MAO.  I just filed a complaint with the FTC.  It's not difficult to do it at all, here's the link, it can all be done online.

https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/

I would hope that if the FTC gets enough, say thousands of complaints, they would force Marriotts' hand into doing the right thing.


----------



## marksue

Modo...  Please let me know if you get a positive response.  I would love to speak with the press regarding what Marriott is doing. I have sent links to a couple of publications, but I think we need to know someone who is willing to look into this.


----------



## Sunbum

*Latest letter from Frank Knox Part 1*

December 2008


Dear Aruba Ocean Club Owners,

Greetings from Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club! We’ve had an exciting year here at your home away from home, and I would like to brief you on the latest news and significant changes that have occurred since your last operations update: 

Management and Staffing Updates

At the January 2008 Board Meeting, we asked Marriott to provide a new General Manager whose sole responsibility would be to oversee the operations of Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club, since managing both Aruba Ocean Club and Aruba Surf Club is too large a task for one person to handle effectively. In response to our request, we are delighted to welcome Corey Guest as General Manager of Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club. Since his arrival, Corey’s foremost concern has been to ensure that our Owners have a worry-free, relaxing and enjoyable vacation. He is accessible to the Owners and has been extremely responsive to the Board. Most importantly, Corey recognizes what needs to be improved and takes the initiative to correct problems. Whether Corey receives input from the Board or from the Owners, he responds with a can-do attitude. We are also pleased to welcome Ricardo Vrolijk as your property’s new dedicated Director of Finance. Both individuals come with more than 26 years of experience within the hospitality industry and will provide the attention to detail needed. These two individuals and the property’s Director of Rooms Operations, Lillian Britten, comprise a team that can quickly respond to the requests and concerns of our Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club Owners. 

The Board is now asking that all Owner communications be directed to our General Manager Corey Guest rather than to the Board. Corey walks the property several times a day and receives Owner feedback. In addition, a weekly Owners Reception provides a relaxing setting for Owners to interact with the management staff. Having all Owner feedback channeled through Corey will allow him to better manage the various Owner concerns and be more responsive to both the Owners and the Board. Corey already shares all Owner communication with the Board and provides us a monthly summary of feedback he receives from Owners at the resort. As always, we are immediately available to work with Corey to resolve issues that involve policy or an unbudgeted expenditure. To contact Corey and the Board, please send your 
e-mail to aocbod@vacationclub.com.  

This e-mail address also will be posted on our resort page at My-VacationClub.com.

The Board will continue to communicate directly with Owners through periodic postings on the Web site, summaries of recent Board meetings and other updates as necessary. We will continue to share relevant information regarding the underlying reasons for decisions as well as our candid assessments of future challenges and opportunities. Please recognize that any decisions made by the Board affect each of us as Owners the same way it affects you.


During the recent Annual Owner’s Meeting, the Board of Directors recognized two outstanding staff members for their exemplary service during 2007 who won the Marriott Resort Complex Associate of the Year and Supervisor of the Year awards. Both winners were selected out of a pool of more than 1,100 Marriott associates: 

Betty Maduro – Housekeeper, Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club
Nestor Ricaurte – Engineering Supervisor, Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club

Several other Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club and shared-resource associates were also recognized for their outstanding service in their respective departments during the past 12 months:

Christina Alvarez-Jiao – At Your Service Agent
Sharina Farrell – Server, Champions Restaurant
Joseph Goldbourne – Bellman
Rodney Gomez – Recreation Supervisor
Josette Martina – Activities Attendant
Diego Noguera – Engineer
Margaret Thomas – Vacation Planner
Silveria Ventura – Housekeeper
Natasha Wever – Loss Prevention Officer


New Services

Shuttle Service – Earlier this year the Aruba Marriott® Resort & Stellaris® Casino purchased shuttles to transport Owners and guests around the resort complex. The shuttle service runs continually from 2 p.m. to 2 a.m. daily and makes stops between the Marriott’s Aruba Surf Club Main Lobby and Building C & D Lobby, the Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club Lobby, the Casino exterior entrance and the Resort Lobby entrance. 

Laundry Service – Based on feedback received from our Owner community, Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club instituted a laundry service in addition to the dry cleaning service already offered. The Front Desk will explain the service upon check-in. All you need to do is leave your laundry in the basket; your Room Attendant will have it laundered, folded and delivered the same day. 

Owner Receptions – Many Owners have commented that they come to Aruba to be outside and enjoy the sunsets. Owners are encouraged to attend an Owners Meeting, held every Tuesday at 5 p.m. outside on the Pavilion Terrace. This meeting is exclusive to Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club Owners and gives them the opportunity to meet with the management staff 1-on-1 and provide valuable feedback and suggestions. 

Vacation Experience – Our prearrival Vacation Experience Team has worked hard to improve their services. Owners should now receive an e-mail 3 to 4 weeks prior to arrival confirming reservation dates and villa type as well as offering prearrival services such as groceries, reservations, villa needs and more. As we proceed, the program will be continually improved; please provide us with any feedback or suggestions you may have. 

Matey’s Hall Kids Club and The Den – Recently the Matey’s Hall Kids Club was relocated to a new-and-improved stand-alone building with a playground. Part of the space where the former Kids Club was located has been renovated into an area designed for teens called The Den. This room features LCD televisions, music, video games and activities for children ages 12 to 18. All Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club Owners have access to these activity rooms located at Marriott’s Aruba Surf Club. All activities offered to our Owners can be found in the in-villa Navigator magazine. 

New Automated Owner Services Phone System – Owner Services is pleased to announce exciting and hassle-free options to make your maintenance fee payments and trade for Marriott Rewards® points via our easy-to-use automated phone system. The new system allows you to review and pay your maintenance fees, request a copy of your bill, and receive information on your latest payment or where to mail your payment. If you are eligible to trade your week(s) for Marriott Rewards points, you can also use the automated system to easily manage this transaction. Both of these systems are available by calling 800-845-4226 and following the phone prompts. For your convenience, you can also visit 
My-VacationClub.com to make your maintenance fee payment, trade your week(s) for points, and much more. Either way, we hope you enjoy these services! Hint: Avoid possible wait times on the phone by using My-VacationClub.com for these services, especially during the busiest season, January – March.


Resort Facility Enhancements

Pool and Rock Resurfacing – In September, the entire pool and surrounding rockscape was renovated and resurfaced while the landscaping around the pool deck was enhanced as well. I hope you enjoy our efforts to create the perfect tropical setting for your vacation!

Related to the pool is the interim suspension of the integration agreement that the Board and Management agreed to in the fall of 2007. The resort management opted to continue the suspension while Marriott’s Aruba Surf Club expands their pool deck area; this expansion should be complete by late December.   Upon completion of the pool deck expansion the Board of Directors and Management will reevaluate the policies regarding the sharing of pool facilities.

Safety and Security – We have placed additional measures to improve safety around the property through further integration with both Marriott’s Aruba Surf Club and the Marriott resort to ensure standardization and superior communication. We have had digital safes installed in all the villas to replace the old key-lock versions. Stairwell exit doors and safety bars have also all been replaced with newer versions. Additionally, we have reopened the Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club Loss Prevention (Security) Office to provide increased surveillance as well as address after-hours door and safe concerns. Lastly, within the next several weeks, we will be installing key-card readers in all of the elevator cabs that guests will use to access villa floors. 

Roof Replacement – We are in the final weeks of our complete roof restoration. Due to the harsh weather conditions in Aruba, our roof was nearing the point where it needed replacement. Please let me assure you that the roof was not defective as some prior correspondences have suggested. This project, which is being funded by both Marriott Vacation Club® and the Association, should be completed by mid-December. During the fall 2007 Board Meetings, we worked with Marriott Vacation Club to ensure that the costs of the project for their B shares of the building would be paid for, as well as any costs for the time the roof was in place prior to Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club opening. This amounted to Marriott Vacation Club covering about 43% of the expense.


----------



## Sunbum

*Letter from Frank Knox part 2*

Heat-Wheel and Corridor Air Conditioning – Unfortunately many of the islands in the Caribbean do not have the resources required for energy conservation projects. Properties on the island must continue to source new ideas and initiatives to “go green” and reduce costs as much as possible. The cost of electric utilities has increased dramatically—more than 45% in just the past year alone. We are almost finished with a project that will help conserve energy and save the resort money. Cold air from the villas, exiting the building via air vents, will be recirculated to help with cooling the hallways. This is one of several projects we have planned that should provide considerable savings on electricity. 

Windows – The rubber around some of the hallway windows and the caulking around façade windows has aged due to the excessive heat, wind and salt air present. Rather than repairing them and incurring the costs, we quickly contacted manufacturers and were successful in getting them to replace and recaulk the windows before any warranties expired.

Villa Air Conditioners – More than 150 villas are receiving new energy-efficient air conditioners to replace older ones. We began this project in early September, and it will take approximately 4 months to complete. 


Future Enhancements

Renovation – The Board of Directors, along with the Marriott Vacation Club Management Team, recently concluded a year of planning and budgeting focused on the final scope of renovation. The project—which is due to take place in 2009 from July to December—will create a completely new look for the lobby, corridors and villas. This will include new furniture (sofas, chairs, armoires, flat-screen televisions, etc.); kitchen cabinets and appliances (refrigerator, stove, dishwasher, etc.); carpeting in the villas and hallways; bathrooms with new showers, vanities and granite tops; and much more. 

We do not expect that Owners who wish to visit next summer will have any difficulty in making reservations.  Inconveniences should be minimal as the renovation will only occur in certain closed-off sections/floors of the resort. Marriott Vacation Club has committed in excess of $2 million in financial support over the next two years, which effectively reduces total 2009 and 2010 maintenance fees by approximately $180 per week.   I am confident all our Owners will be simply amazed at the new Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club

Electronic Mailings – Marriott Vacation Club is finalizing the software to enable us to safely and securely e-mail all future notifications to Owners who have an e-mail address on record. We anticipate that this enhancement will save more than $20,000 per year in Association mailing costs. If you have not done so already, please add or update your e-mail address at My-VacationClub.com. After logging in, select “Manage My Account” and then “Account Profile” before entering in your information. You may also contact Owner Services at 800-845-4226 with your updated information. 

Check-in/Check-out Day Expansion – Presently, Owners check in and out on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. Based on feedback regarding limited flight availability and the cost of flying during weekends, we are in the process of amending our documents to all for an additional day or two to check-in and checkout so Owners have more flexibility when planning their vacation. This will also assist our Front Desk and Housekeeping in spreading our labor costs through the week and reducing the amount of weekend part-timers and overtime. As most Owners have already booked their vacation for 2009, the effect of this change will not be evident until your 2010 trip is arranged. More information and options will be available from your Marriott Vacation Planner. 


Financial Overview  

The 2007 audit of our financial statements is complete and copies of the full audit report are available. If you wish to view a copy, please go to the Ocean Club page on My-VacationClub.com or you can contact the resort Executive Administrative Assistant Gail Sahit, gail.mahabeer@marriotthotels.com, and she will forward one to you. As always, we received a clean report letter from the auditors, which is the highest level of assurance they offer. 

Financially, this year has been a challenge. While we plan and manage the finances as prudently as possible, unexpected increases and disasters cause unexpected expenses. Keeping costs in line with budget while still maintaining the integrity and the vacation experience of the Marriott Vacation Club Owners has become a major concern of the Board during the past few months due to the spike in the price of oil and the effect this has on many facets of our business. According to the Centrale Bank van Aruba (www.cbaruba.org/cba/readBlob.do?id=1222), “In July 2008, the consumer price index increased by 10.2% compared to the corresponding month in 2007.” This is significantly higher than the U.S. and has a far-reaching impact in all facets of our business. Since that time, inflation on the island has fluctuated but still remains generally between 9 and 10%. 

Energy costs in Aruba have increased by more than 43%; this has been primarily attributed to the cost of oil. And although the price of oil has gone down in recent months, the effect has not really been felt yet in Aruba. Unlike in the U.S. and many other countries, the utility companies in Aruba are government regulated so there is not a tremendous incentive for a reduction of the cost of these utilities to be passed down to consumers. Although we anticipate utility costs to decline somewhat should oil not spike again, we have had to ensure that we do not run into any deficit next year, unlike this year where our expenses are 56% over budget for electricity and 43% over in water. We are continuing to seek opportunities to reduce consumption and “go green”; many of these efforts are working as we are showing more than 5% per year declines in electricity consumption. 

More than 75% of budget overruns this year have been directly related to expenses not regulated by management, which include inflation, water and electric costs, and fees for credit card usage by Owners. 

Labor cost for all departments has increased due to the unbudgeted 3.1% increase in the minimum wage that the Aruban government unexpectedly enacted in July 2008. This, combined with the current shortage of labor on the island (housekeeping, houseman, telephone operators and security), has created a vacuum-type effect on the labor market. It is widely expected that many of the recently proposed labor laws will be enacted by the local government this time next year, which may again result in further labor-related increases.

Repairs and Renovation
In October, the island was hit with tropical storm effects from Hurricane Omar, which formed just north of Aruba. After more than 24 hours of driving wind and rain and rising sea levels, the island was left with severe beach erosion and flooding. Although our property fared better than some, we still experienced damage. Initial communications estimated the damage was much greater than what we actually incurred. I have received e-mails from Owners asking why Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club sustained more damage than the neighboring properties. It is a fact that our resort sustained more damage than the Marriott hotel, which just completed a $50 million renovation that included complete waterproofing and painting of their building. Our property also sustained more damage than Marriott’s Aruba Surf Club, which is a much newer structure than Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club. 

Simply put, Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club is due for its 10-year renovation. This includes waterproofing the building, replacing the roof, repainting and a complete refurbishment of the Lobby and villas. This is not any different from the Marriott hotel’s 2-year renovation or any other resort property that runs annually at more than 95% occupancy in a subtropical, salt-air climate. The damage sustained by the storm did not meet our insurance deductible; therefore the costs of repairs were absorbed in operating fees. 

2009 Maintenance Fees
During the October 2008 Annual Board Meeting, in addition to reviewing our current-year finances, the Board approved the 2009 Maintenance Fees. Although the percentage increase is higher than in prior years, the vast majority of the expense is directly related to nonregulated costs. This budget was discussed thoroughly with management to ensure that we minimize the increase of those expenses within our control. 

An overall increase in the operating fee alone (average combined 1- and 2-bedroom villas) can be broken down as follows: 
•	Almost 70% of the operating fee increase is attributed to nonregulated expenses. The majority of these expenses are related to government-regulated electric and water costs, diesel fuel, as well as higher user participation for credit card service. 
•	The remainder of the operating increase comes directly from regulated (controllable) expenses. These relate specifically to operations funding necessary to staff and maintain the new pool, wage increases to keep us competitive with the market, housekeeping expenses (primarily driven by laundry), outside contractor costs and the impact of inflation. 

The Board-approved operating fee per villa type for 2009 is $876.09 for a 1-bedroom villa and $1,174.92 for a 2-bedroom villa. A one-time only Deficit Recovery for the 2008 utility and storm cost overruns will be included with your maintenance fee bill; this Board approved amount is $71.02 for a 1-bedroom villa and $101.96 for a 2-bedroom villa. 

Our commitment to remain one of the best Marriott Vacation Club resorts requires long-range planning by management and the Board. The planning for the renovation as well as reserve forecasting for years into the future were discussed extensively during our latest meeting. The Board and the management team explored a number of alternative funding options to properly increase reserves to pay for the renovation and avoid incurring future assessments. The reserve portion of your annual maintenance bill for 2009 will amount to $309.93 for a 1-bedroom villa and $420.72 for a 2-bedroom villa. 

In regard to the 2009 and 2010 assessments for the renovation that has been communicated to Owners during the past 2 years, we were able to keep the amounts within the ranges that were quoted. In order to limit the financial impact to our Owners but still complete the refurbishment by winter of 2009, we have divided the special assessments into two payments.   In April of 2009, the first of the two special assessments will be billed to each Owner.  The April refurbishment assessment will be $492.30 for a 1 bedroom and $639.25 for a 2 bedroom unit.  The second and final payment for the refurbishment special assessment will be included in the 2010 Maintenance Fee Billing.  

A detailed maintenance fee breakdown, including a focus on future reserves, will be included with the annual bill for 2009. Overall, every effort was made to keep the maintenance fees increase for items within our control to a minimum while still ensuring resort maintenance as well as superior service. 

Looking Forward to 2009
The newly refurbished Lobby and villas will be simply spectacular! The Board of Directors all feel justifiably proud of the hard work they and the design and construction consultants have put into the project thus far. We believe that you, as Owners, will be very pleased with the results of our collective decisions to preserve and maintain your resort. 

I would like to note that all of us on the Board are Owners—any decisions we make as a Board affect us just as much as they do you. Our goal is to ensure that we all have a resort that we are proud of and that is managed to our expectations. Marriott is one of the most recognized and respected hospitality companies in the world. And yes, Marriott is in the business to make a profit, just as any other company. The Board’s charge is to work positively with Marriott, and avoid circumstances similar to those in the past that led to stalemates and delays. We believe we have accomplished this and can now work constructively together to ensure that our property remains the best in Aruba. 

As you have read, this past year we celebrated a number of milestones that have changed the landscape and feel of the resort. More importantly, we will continue to focus on service and friendliness, which ultimately is what brings Owners back to Aruba year after year. Year to date, 89% of our Owners and guests continue to tell us how friendly our associates are, and 80% tell us that overall they had a great vacation experience. Although these numbers may sound impressive to most, Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club will continue to strive for our goal of 100%. 

It is an exciting time at Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club, and we look forward to an even greater future as we continue to transform the resort so as to provide unforgettable vacations for a lifetime! 

Happy holidays,

Frank Knox
Association President


----------



## ilene13

I just got Frank's email from Corey.  I sent back an email asking for some clarification.  I'll let you know if I get a response.


----------



## Eric

Thats about as mis informed as I have ever read on TUG. MVCI deciding to only pay a portion of the repairs is a valid issue but the increses do not go to them. They get a percentage, period. You make it sound like they will increase fees across the board in order to make more money which is not how the real world works in timeshares. 





lovearuba said:


> My expense for 2009 is $2336.85.  Ouch!  Its obvious that Marriott is going to do this to the other timeshares because they obviously are not making as much money through the sales of timeshares so the owners are footing the bill.
> 
> For those of you that own other Marriotts, mark my words, if Marriott gets away with this your fees are going up as well. You just might have to wait until next year.


----------



## lovearuba

*Eric*

You can deny it but we all know you work for Marriott


----------



## lovearuba

*FTC Complaint*

Hi
I am not sure if the Federal Trade Commission is the appropriate complaint board but if it is I will forward the link to the owners that have written letters and they can decide for themselves if they want to pursue a complaint.


----------



## Eric

Good comback LOL
You can't deny it, your post is very misleading and just plain, not true 



lovearuba said:


> You can deny it but we all know you work for Marriott


----------



## Dave M

lovearuba said:


> You can deny it but we all know you work for Marriott


I think you are confusing "Eric" with "Eric F".


----------



## luvmypt

If I figured right, from the above letter, then we owe 2954.64 in January and 1131.50 in April for a grand total of 4085.23. If things weren't bad enough already, this certainly makes things worse.


----------



## marksue

OK here is my take in Frank’s letter and I can tell you the lack of truth in the letter astonishes me given the information that is out there today.

IT states that the board will communicate to owners through the website.  How can that be when you have removed all communications from the website?  How about sending a copy of all meeting minutes to all owners or posting them on the web, and not just the parts of the meeting you want to have read.  Where are the minutes from the Owners meeting in October? When you say relevant information, is that what you consider relevant or do we decide what is relevant.  Instead of just posting at the Ocean Club upcoming board meetings post it on the website so anyone can join in.  If you represent the owners why are you hiding everything from us?

You say you are owners as well and have the same impact.  This is not completely true, we don’t get a flight and a room in Aruba for no cost, you do.  

Roof Replacement: He says the roof was not defective and the harsh weather caused it to need replacing.  FRANK please explain why the roof leaked from day 1 if it was not defective.  I bet you can’t, but you and Marriott want us to believe it was not defective.  Why are you not addressing owners concerns with the roof?  Why are we not going after Marriott to pay for the roof and 

Windows:  He says the caulking and rubber has aged, once again I say why have we had problems since day 1.  He says it is being covered under warranty, then why are we paying $750,000 to waterproof the building?

Renovation:  Marriott recommend a renovation @5 million less than we are paying for a renovation.  If you are saying everything else Marriott wants you to and doing what Marriott wants you to, why then are we spending more money than Marriott recommended. (I got this information from my conversation with David Babich, Dirk and Troy).  Following there recommendation would have saved a great deal of money for owners.

You say owners will be simply amazed at the new Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club, that may be so for those that can afford the outrageous MF.  No matter what is done it is now cheaper to rent a unit from an owner than to own a unit.  And what happens when owners walk away and can no longer pay the fees?  My fees for a 1 bedroom are more than my 2 bedroom in the surf club.

Financials:  He states July 2008 the CPI increased to 10.2%.  Why are we looking at July when this is December and the fees are for 2009.  I verified that the annualized inflation rate for Aruba was 9.1%.   Why did we not factor in a minimum wage increase?  3.1% does not seem out of line.

In the owners meeting it was stated that the 1 bedroom MF were going to be 1198 now it is 1257.  Two bedrooms were going to be 1616 and now they are 1697.  So instead of being aware of the economy and the pressure on owners they raise the fees even further.  You have to wonder what these people are thinking.  These fees include a 1 time charge for deficit recovery for the utility storm and utility cost over run.  The storm cost us 200k. Why is Marriott not paying for that since the building was not up to par.  The Hotel never had a problem like this, so don’t tell us it was because it was refurbished. The surf club is 5 years old.  The ocean club had these same problems when it was 5 years old.  Oh wait at 5 years old it was a rusted shell.  SO at 6 years old it had the same problem as it did in Oct.  

The board has also gone back on their word for billing of Assessment fees.  It was supposed to be June or July of each year and now it is April this year and with your MF in 2010.

We do not need spectacular lobby’s and villas, we need well maintained and good looking lobby’s and villas.  This board needs to become fiscally responsible.  Currently they are not at all.  Many of the owners that are going to pay for this work will not be able to enjoy it as they can not continue to pay these costs.

The wording around financials also makes you think they are preparing us for more big increases next year.

This board has operated with blinders on.  They do not care about owners or they would be fighting for us.  They also think we owners are not very smart by using a lot of words to make it seem like we should be paying for Marriott’s responsibility

Bottom line is this letter from Frank and the board sounds just like how Marriott spoke at the owners meeting.

ANYONE WHO DECIDES TO BUY A TIMESHARE FROM MARRIOTT BETTER DO A GOOD JOB OF DUE DILLIGENCE.   Things may be good for a few years then watch out.


----------



## lovearuba

*I'm not confusing Eric*

Hi
I read his other posts and if hes not Marriott then he must be looking for a job there.


----------



## Zac495

I received an email with a link to a letter from Marriott board. I clicked and it said the link was inactive. ???


----------



## nanceetom

*Shocked, what to do!!*

I'm reading all the tug comments.  Besides writing, discussiong with each other, thinking about an attorney, what should we all be doing, or is the situation just MOOT.


----------



## rarena

How about trying to get the 1100 votes for a special meeting?


----------



## Eric

!!! rewrote below 



lovearuba said:


> Hi
> I read his other posts and if hes not Marriott then he must be looking for a job there.


----------



## Eric

You don't have to work for Marriott to understand your post had no basis of truth. Please don't try and mislead newbies to thinking yearly fees go to the company and therefore when the company wants more money, they increses fees.


----------



## modoaruba

Not saying any money is going to Marriott. OK?

But due to these financially critical times who is deciding to spend our money on refurbishing with high end items instead of just maintaining what we have?

This should be finalized by a vote of owners.

We for one do not come here to have stainless steel appliances.
We have well running kitchens and living quarters.

An occasional calking and new paint OK but I did not come here to watch an LCD TV if that is coming.

The board must think out clearly what is more important to owners.

At this rate we outprice ourselves from owning and reselling.

The more expensive the refurbishment items are the more the upkeep costs.
The more liability.

It's great to live in a mansion but remember it costs more to maintain.

Ever hear of taxation without representation?
This is spending our money with disregard to the owners.

WE NEED A VOTE!!!

The board MUST send each owner a plan with costs of what is intended to be done and the final plan should be by popular vote.

How is that for a solution?


----------



## vincenzi

*Spoke with a Marriott Representative*

Today, I called and spoke with a Marriott representative.  He could only give me my maintenance fee for my 2 bedroom unit at Grande Ocean in Hilton Head.  The fee is $1,027.66.  I already knew it because it is posted on the Vacation Club website.  He said the amount for the fees for Aruba Ocean Club had not be released. So, he could not give me a figure.  I own two (2) two bedroom units at Aruba Ocean Club.  So next year, am I going to be charged $4,672 for the maintenance fees and assessment for those two units??? It looks like I am going to have to sell some stock to pay for my Marriott fees.  Oh that's right, I forgot...my portfolio has crashed!!!  The timing of these unreasonable and unrealistic fees could not be worse!


----------



## Dave M

modoaruba said:


> WE NEED A VOTE!!!
> 
> The board MUST send each owner a plan with costs of what is intended to be done and the final plan should be by popular vote.
> 
> How is that for a solution?


Possibly a good idea, but not one that will ever fly in the Marriott system. As clearly described in the CC&Rs, the Board of Directors has the authority to approve the budget and establish the level of MFs and any special assessments. Changing that aspect of those legal documents is, for all practicality, impossible.


----------



## lovearuba

In response to Erics quote below:

You don't have to work for Marriott to understand your post had no basis of truth. Please don't try and mislead newbies to thinking yearly fees go to the company and therefore when the company wants more money, they increses fees.


My response: You dont have to be a rocket scientist to see you work for Marriott or are closely aligned. For those of you that Eric calls newbies, take a look at his previous posts.  Your allegiances are clear Eric.


----------



## vincenzi

*Why Did the Board Approve Such an Unfair Budget?*



Dave M said:


> Possibly a good idea, but not one that will ever fly in the Marriott system. As clearly described in the CC&Rs, the Board of Directors has the authority to approve the budget and establish the level of MFs and any special assessments. Changing that aspect of those legal documents is, for all practicality, impossible.



Dave,

Thanks for the information.  If that is the case, why on earth did our Board approve a budget that is so unfair to the owners? Also, why did the Board remove Allan Cohen, our past President, who was an honest and ethical man?  There are too many questions.  And, no one is stepping up to give us the answers.  Why???


----------



## Dave M

*In my capacity as a BBS moderator....*

Those who wish to continue to have the privilege of posting should stop making accusations regarding other posters. If you question the reason for my warning, please read the "Be Courteous" section of the Posting Rules, accessible from the blue bar near the top of this page.


----------



## Dave M

vincenzi said:


> Dave,
> 
> Thanks for the information.  If that is the case, why on earth did our Board approve a budget that is so unfair to the owners? Also, why did the Board remove Allan Cohen, our past President, who was an honest and ethical man?  There are too many questions.


Beats me. Even though I'm not an owner at Ocean Club, there are a lot of things in that letter that leave me perplexed. Whether or not the fees and the 43% allocation for the roof are fair, I can't judge. 

For the overwhelming majority of owners who don't have access to the type of information discussed in this thread, my guess is that most of them will read the letter, shrug their shoulders, grumble that they don't like it, pay the fees and move on. 

But for those who have been paying attention here, the letter raises more questions than it answers. I think Marriott dropped the ball on communication, even if the MF and assessment are fair.


----------



## Kelly&Sean

*Increase in Percentage*

I own 2 one-bedroom units and 1 two-bedoom unit.  My maintenance fees last year were $2,784.  My maintenance fees this year are $4,212.  That is an increase of $1,428.  That represents an increase of *51 PERCENT FROM LAST YEAR.*

With the assessment of $1,624, I will be paying $5,836 this year.  That is $3,052 more then last year.  That is a increase of *110 PERCENT *over last years payment.

These numbers are scary.  It is just wrong that they can just increase our payments by these amounts of money without our say.  I did not even vote for these people.  My President has been removed from his position.


----------



## ecwinch

*President removed?*

Sorry for question - I do not own at the Ocean Club, own at HarbourPoint in HHI. 

But how was the previous president "removed"? 

Also, is not their not a owner elected board? Based on the age of the Ocean Club, I assume that the board is not developer controlled. 

I am currently looking at the Ocean Club as I am staying at the Surf club, and my unit faces the Ocean Club.


----------



## Eric

You are clearly in the minority. Most Marriott owners want the resorts to be nicer than their homes. As far as votes, the rules were clear when you bought. 




modoaruba said:


> Not saying any money is going to Marriott. OK?
> 
> But due to these financially critical times who is deciding to spend our money on refurbishing with high end items instead of just maintaining what we have?
> 
> This should be finalized by a vote of owners.
> 
> We for one do not come here to have stainless steel appliances.
> We have well running kitchens and living quarters.
> 
> An occasional calking and new paint OK but I did not come here to watch an LCD TV if that is coming.
> 
> The board must think out clearly what is more important to owners.
> 
> At this rate we outprice ourselves from owning and reselling.
> 
> The more expensive the refurbishment items are the more the upkeep costs.
> The more liability.
> 
> It's great to live in a mansion but remember it costs more to maintain.
> 
> Ever hear of taxation without representation?
> This is spending our money with disregard to the owners.
> 
> WE NEED A VOTE!!!
> 
> The board MUST send each owner a plan with costs of what is intended to be done and the final plan should be by popular vote.
> 
> How is that for a solution?


----------



## modoaruba

Eric

Are you talking to people here at the OC or to Marriott.
Until now I had my doubts about you but you just showed your colors.

We have been at the OC 2weeks and found that the majority of discussions that we had resulted in the majority of those we spoke to share OUR 
concerns.

Ironically, speaking to manager staff, they all responded with the same script.
I have yet to find someone here, ESPECIALLY owning multiple weeks,to agree with your point of view.

As for the Rules when we bought, that is a different story.
Does the word DECEPTIVE ring a bell?


----------



## marksue

Eric,

I do not believe you are correct that the majority want units nicer than thier homes.  I for one don't need all the glitz, if i did I would have bought at the Ritz Carlton.  I want a place at a reasonable cost that I can enjoy a vacation.  Without the proper information how can owners make any decisions.  The board operates in a non transparent way.  They are not performing thier fiduciary duties as elected board members.  If I did not go through Marriott Corproate I would never have gotten to David Babich and found out about the unnecessary expenses the board has approved.  WHen Allan was president there as a great deal of communiations.  Even though Allan is still part of the board, I do believe they have prevented him from continuing to speak to  owners.  Tell us Frank, why are you keeping Allan from being an owners advocate?  Oh i forgot Frank wants us to go through Corey.  Corey, please ask Frank why he has muzzled Allan and are keeping him from being an Owners Advocate.  He is the only one on the board who has ever supported the owners.

We need to get to 1100 units so we can call a special meeting per the Governing Documents.  In this meeting we will present bylaws for greater transparency as well as removal of board members.

Allan was forced out as president by the board and Marriott because he was open with the owners and was willing to speak with whoever wanted to speak.  The current board wants nothing to do with the owners.  That is why they put Corey in thier.  SO corey is becoming an expensive secretary.  I did not think we the owners approved a paid secretary for the board.  Did anyone vote for that?

So the board approves unnecessary expenses and then doesn't hold Marriott responsible for thier defective building. And they want to know why the owners are angry.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> But how was the previous president "removed"?
> 
> Also, is not their not a owner elected board? Based on the age of the Ocean Club, I assume that the board is not developer controlled.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Funny you should say that about it not being "developer controlled" . It isnt supposed to be. What is of great concern to many of the *owners* is that that Mr Cohen duly elected to the board by the *owners*, was a president who communicated with the *owners* for the many years that he was on the board as president. When he spoke of the upcoming assesments he explained why they were being levied and most accepted. It was only after he began investigating exactly what went on vis a vie the building and the non disclosure by Marriott of a number of things did he get "removed" as president, when strangely before he started asking the tough questions the board and Marriott seemed to be quite happy with him.
> My understanding is that they would have used this section of the bylaws :
> 
> *7.4 Term - The officers of the Association shall hold office until their successors are chosen and qualify in their steed.  Any officer elected or appointed by the Board of Directors may be removed at any time, with or without cause, by the Board, provided however, that no officer shall be removed except by the affirmative vote for removal by a majority of the whole Board of Directors, irrespective of whether the Directors are A-members or B-members (e.g. if the Board of Directors is composed of five (5) persons, then three (3) of said Directors must vote for the removal).  If the office of any officer becomes vacant for any reason, the vacancy shall be filled by the Board of Directors*
> 
> Keep in mind that the B member is in fact a Marriott employee. It took 2 other board members, 1 being the current president who seems to think the *owners *need not be communicated with, and the other an apparent Marriott cheerleader.  Not ""developer controlled"...hmmmm...I think that remains to be seen. The end result certainly makes no sense at all. If the board was acting in the best interests of the *owners* taking into account their fiduciary obligations why would they have removed the one individual who was attempting to get to the bottom of things, communicating with the *owners*, and making certain that the *owners* interest were looked after. Instead we now have a president who by his own acc't will adamantly refuses to respond to any *owners* query, has provided no info on what has gone on at the last meeting, who will not provide any reports, etc(see Marks posts). Can anyone who has been following this truly wonder whose interest is being looked after here, and in whose control the board appears to be in. I go back to what I said in an earlier post. Something is definitely out of line here.
> Emphasis on the word *owners* is to draw attention to who is supposed to be represented here


----------



## Zac495

Eric,
I did not buy Ocean Club for fancy TV's. I don't even watch TV in Aruba! I'm certainly not saying keep TV's out of the units - other people may watch TV. People touring the units now see TV's (I'm just using this as an example) - not upgraded ones - so why should they think they'll be upgraded at their expense if they buy?

You know why? Because a year later, the people on tour will see even fancier ones - and they were purchased on the backs of those who already owned. Little do they know they go to the bottom of the pile after purchase.

What about all my points? That changed! Devaluation! Points for financing - gone. Huge increase in fees. 

I do understand some increase, the need for KEEPING THE UNITS UP AS SHOWN in the first place, upkeeping the pool, etc. A storm hit - special assessment - okay - don't like it, but understand it. 

I am not blaming the lowly timeshare salespeople. MOST of them are just that - lowly. They aren't raising our fees. They want to sell timeshares, and many of them really believe in the product (which is still a good product - but getting unaffordable). 

I blame the people on top - and the top people certainly aren't the owners. I OWN my house. Only I (and my husband) decide if we can afford a new, fancy TV. 

Help me understand how it's fair that we have no say. Help me understand how it's okay to make such drastic increases (not including the special assessment) in one year in such a bleak economy. I didn't do anything ridiculous like buy a house with an interest only loan - I bought a timeshare with reasonable fees which I knew would increase with the cost of living over my lifetime. Help me understand.


----------



## Eric

Again, you knew the HOA would make decesion for you and you agreed to that. The issue seems to be HOA is not being upfront with the owners which makes no sense. I agree, if they don't represent the masses, kick them out and get people who do. 



Zac495 said:


> Eric,
> I did not buy Ocean Club for fancy TV's. I don't even watch TV in Aruba! I'm certainly not saying keep TV's out of the units - other people may watch TV. People touring the units now see TV's (I'm just using this as an example) - not upgraded ones - so why should they think they'll be upgraded at their expense if they buy?
> 
> You know why? Because a year later, the people on tour will see even fancier ones - and they were purchased on the backs of those who already owned. Little do they know they go to the bottom of the pile after purchase.
> 
> What about all my points? That changed! Devaluation! Points for financing - gone. Huge increase in fees.
> 
> I do understand some increase, the need for KEEPING THE UNITS UP AS SHOWN in the first place, upkeeping the pool, etc. A storm hit - special assessment - okay - don't like it, but understand it.
> 
> I am not blaming the lowly timeshare salespeople. MOST of them are just that - lowly. They aren't raising our fees. They want to sell timeshares, and many of them really believe in the product (which is still a good product - but getting unaffordable).
> 
> I blame the people on top - and the top people certainly aren't the owners. I OWN my house. Only I (and my husband) decide if we can afford a new, fancy TV.
> 
> Help me understand how it's fair that we have no say. Help me understand how it's okay to make such drastic increases (not including the special assessment) in one year in such a bleak economy. I didn't do anything ridiculous like buy a house with an interest only loan - I bought a timeshare with reasonable fees which I knew would increase with the cost of living over my lifetime. Help me understand.


----------



## marksue

[_Message deleted. Please see my "In my capacity as a BBS Moderator" post above for the reason. Please follow that guidance or don't post._ Dave M, BBS Moderator]


----------



## marksue

Eric, yes we all knew that, but the decisions they have made are fiscal responsible or are they performing their fiduciary duties to the owners. The leaders of Enron where supposed to be operating in the interest of the company and shareholders and look what happened.

Certainly not putting the board at that level, but representatives do not always represent those that have put them there. Why did Marriott deceive us when they sold us the units by not telling us of the building status.  

Dave, hopefully you are ok with this


----------



## LDT

*From my advisor.*

I asked about fees at the Surf and Ocean Clubs and my advisor sent me this.  



December 2008



Dear Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club Owner,

The Aruba Ocean Club (AOC) Board of Directors approved the 2009 budget and maintenance fee, which unfortunately represents a significant increase over 2008 – an extremely difficult year for the Association, which is forecasted to end 2008 with a substantial deficit in its operating fund.   Key items contributing to this operating deficit are the same uncontrollable expenses which drive the increase in the 2009 budget. 

In 2008, Aruba utility rates increased our costs by more than 43% for electricity and 22% for water and sewer. In addition, inflation on Aruba is averaging more than 8%, while the rate of inflation has exceeded 10% since the beginning of the 3rd quarter of 2008. Consequently, we have experienced substantial increases in labor cost, as well as in most goods and supplies which are needed to operate the resort on a daily basis. Furthermore, although Hurricane Omar had little visibility in the U.S., the extensive winds and rain created water intrusion and unbudgeted cleaning and repair expenses, which are estimated between $85,000 and $110,000 and will put additional strain on the Association's operating fund; particularly as they are expected to fall short of our current insurance deductible, which equals 1% of the total building value. 

As a result of the above, Annual Maintenance Fees for 2009 will be $1,186.02 for a 1 bedroom and $1,595.64 for a 2 bedroom. In addition to the base maintenance fee, a 1-bedroom Owner will be assessed $71.02 for 2008 Utility and Storm Deficit Recovery costs and a 2-bedroom Owner will be assessed a deficit recovery of $101.96. 

During the past two years, the AOC Board of Directors communicated the need for refurbishment assessments in 2009 and 2010 through various newsletters. We have been able to keep the refurbishment assessment amounts within ranges quoted to all Owners. However, in order to limit the financial impact to our Owners and still complete the refurbishment by winter of 2009, we have decided to bill the first Refurbishment Assessment in April 2009, while the second Refurbishment Assessment will be included in the 2010 maintenance fee billing. The April Refurbishment Assessment will be $492.30 for a 1 bedroom and $639.25 for a 2 bedroom unit. 

Updated Cost Allocation: In 2008, the AOC Board reviewed the allocation details for shared labor and services between the Marriott hotel, Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club and Marriott’s Aruba Surf Club resorts. As a result of this review and an evaluation of owner feedback, a decision was made to proceed with dedicated Aruba Ocean Club General Manager, Administrative Assistant and Director of Finance positions. Although this represents a material change to the cost structure of AOC, the Board felt the additional expense was justified by the complexity of operating the resort at a consistent, annual occupancy of approximately 95%.

Revenue: In 2008, AOC received revenues from palapas rentals, parking, lobby computer kiosks, the AOC web site, as well as from vendor desks in the lobby. However, revenues fell short against the performance of prior years. Your Board of Directors is continuing to look for new ideas to enhance revenues and welcomes any ideas owners might have to achieve this. 

Main drivers for the 2009 Budget:

 	Utilities: As mentioned above, electricity rates increased by more than 43%, and water rates increased by more than 22% in 2008. Although electricity and water consumption have been reduced by 5.6% and 1.3%, respectively, rate increases far exceeded the impact of the reduction in consumption. In 2009, the utility rates are budgeted to increase 15.5% for electricity and 14.9% for water.

 	Housekeeping: An increase in contract labor rates of almost 12% combined with laundry utility surcharges have resulted in an increase of more than 26% in housekeeping costs. In 2009, reduced tidy revenues (due to lower occupancy resulting from the planned refurbishment), and a 3.1% increase in hourly labor rates are the key drivers to the housekeeping budget increase.

 	Activities: Our pool towel service has also seen more than a 16% increase in costs as a result of utilities surcharges for 2008. In addition, palapas revenues decreased in 2008, resulting from a general desire by Aruba Ocean Club ownership to stop renting palapas to Aruba Surf Club owners and guest.

 	Administration: As mentioned above, Aruba Ocean Club added dedicated General Manager, Administrative Assistant and Director of Finance positions to the leadership team in 2008. The resort now carries 100% of the resulting expenses from these roles versus 25% Admin expenses shared with Aruba Surf Club in previous years.

 	Utility and Storm Deficit Recovery: This one-time expense offsets the 2008 year-end operating fund shortfall, driven by unforeseen utility cost increases, as well as from some water intrusion related expenses due to Hurricane Omar.




 	Reserves: The increase in the Residential Reserve Fund contributions are needed to offset recent increases in local sales tax, Aruba service tax, customs duties, overseas shipping and international construction costs. These cost factors increased by almost 50% during the past 3 years, relative to prior years. Additional funding of the Reserve is necessary to maintain the resort at current high level of standards we all expect. Furthermore, the resort is now 9 years old, and it will be necessary to replace villa furniture, appliances and to refurbish our building façade. While the Association has and will continue to work with MVCI to ensure all construction and product warranties are honored by the developer and manufacturer, the combination of high occupancy, a tropical climate, trade winds and salt air have unfortunately resulted in a reduction of the normal life expectancy of some specific assets. The following assets have recently been replaced and/or are currently under review for replacement:

o	Replacement of the Main Building flat roof is scheduled to be completed no later than the end of the second week of December 2008. Upon completion of this work, all roofs will have a manufacturer's and installer's warranty that protects the roof integrity for the next decade. MVCI is paying more than 43% of the total roof replacement cost, including the prorated value related to the 5-year period the concrete skeleton and roof of the current AOC building sat idle and MVCI's 12.2% share resulting from its ownership of the commercial areas in the AOC building.

o	We have replaced all but 10 of our failed windows at no cost. While the manufacturer has provided replacement windows under their warranty, MVCI has paid for all shipping, tax and installation costs for these replacement windows.

o	In 2008, we upgraded our corridor HVAC system to capture and recycle lost, conditioned air from villa bathroom exhaust fans, which will reduce future energy consumption.

o	In 2008, the main pool and pump rooms were completely refurbished, including new pumps, filtration, pool and rock resurfacing.

o	The villa and façade refurbishment is scheduled to begin in July of 2009 and is expected to be completed by December 2009. The main lobby and corridors will have a completely new look, while all villa interiors, including bathrooms, will be updated.  The Ocean Club will essentially be new inside and out. Most importantly, your vacation investment will be enhanced and protected for the long term.


Marriott Vacation Club International, our Management Company, is working side by side with your Board of Directors to ensure we continue to provide the vacation experience at Aruba Ocean Club each of us expects, while providing the best short-term and long-term value for each individual owner.  In their efforts to assist the Association, Marriott has committed in excess of $2,000,000 in financial support during the next two years, which effectively reduces total 2009 and 2010 maintenance fees by approximately $180 per week.


The breakdown of the 2009 Maintenance Fee on your billing statement is as follows:


								1 Bedroom				2 Bedroom

2009 Maintenance Fee (Annual Operating & Reserve)			1,186.02					1,595.64

Utility and Storm Deficit Recovery from 2008 **				     71.02					   101.96

Total								1,257.04					1,697.60
** The Deficit Recovery for the 2009 billing is for one year only.


Your input has been very valuable to the Board of Directors in setting the strategy for Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club. We have heard loud and clear from the Owners that we must have a Resort that meets our needs and expectations for now and the future. We can and will make this our priority. I hope that you agree with our financial plan and can assure you that your Board of Directors will continue to manage and reduce expenses at every opportunity.


You may call toll-free at 800-443-4391 or e-mail owner.services@vacationclub.com, if you have any questions about the Special Assessments or your 2009 Maintenance Fee statement.


Sincerely,



Melissa Pericolosi
Treasurer


----------



## thinze3

Kelly&Sean said:


> I own 2 one-bedroom units and 1 two-bedoom unit.  My maintenance fees last year were $2,784.  My maintenance fees this year are $4,212.  That is an increase of $1,428.  That represents an increase of *51 PERCENT FROM LAST YEAR.*
> 
> With the assessment of $1,624, I will be paying $5,836 this year.  That is $3,052 more then last year.  That is a increase of *110 PERCENT *over last years payment.
> 
> These numbers are scary.  It is just wrong that they can just increase our payments by these amounts of money without our say.  I did not even vote for these people....



Hmm.   Looks like bargains are soon to be had at AOC in the resale market. Imagine buying a 2BR gold annual for about $5K and then having an beautiful new unit to go too annualy. The $1300 special assessment will be over in one year.

FYI - Westin owners have been paying these high fees for a while now.

Terry

P.S. - Anybody want to buy a platinum Beachplace for $10K so I can buy 2 AOC's.   Just kidding Dave - MBP not for sale.


----------



## Sunbum

> Eric,
> I did not buy Ocean Club for fancy TV's. I don't even watch TV in Aruba! I'm certainly not saying keep TV's out of the units - other people may watch TV. People touring the units now see TV's (I'm just using this as an example) - not upgraded ones - so why should they think they'll be upgraded at their expense if they buy?



I think we have to be carefull about slamming the renovations. We did buy at a Marriott, a high end property. Part of the reason i bought, was because it was at the high end and i new that it would always be modern and reasonably fresh.

If you want mediocor renos every 15-20 years than La Cabana or a similar resort may have been a better choice.


----------



## Eric

As mentioned, this is the general feleing of MOST MVCI owners including myself



Sunbum said:


> I think we have to be carefull about slamming the renovations. We did buy at a Marriott, a high end property. Part of the reason i bought, was because it was at the high end and i new that it would always be modern and reasonably fresh.
> 
> If you want mediocor renos every 15-20 years than La Cabana or a similar resort may have been a better choice.


----------



## marksue

We can still have high end without having the top of the line and exceeding estiamtes.  Marriott is high end but they recommended renovations about 5 million less than what the board is actually spending. So we are above high end.


----------



## Eric

Point taken 



marksue said:


> We can still have high end without having the top of the line and exceeding estiamtes.  Marriott is high end but they recommended renovations about 5 million less than what the board is actually spending. So we are above high end.


----------



## ocdb8r

From a non-owner perspective, I stayed at MOC this past May and I thought the "outside" of the resort needed a fair amount of work.  Pools needed refurbishment (had anyone take a gander at the underside of the swim up bar tops), hot tub jets needed repair, grills were hurting, outside of the building looked like it could use updating/painting...etc.

I found the inside of the villa to be fairly nice.  The bathroom/shower could have used some nice tile work but everything else seemed up to normal Marriott standards.

One thing I was amazed to hear was that an extensive refurbishment was about to occur inside the units only a couple of years after the kitchen's were already overhauled.  Seems like a bit of waste to spend the $$$ to put in granite and stuff, only to have it replaced a few years later.  Is this really the case?  (I could have misunderstood)

In any case, it seems to me there needs to be better budgeting.  Small assessments and increases for one offs like minor hurricane damage and utility increases is fine but assessments that total over 1K a unit indicate to me that reserve budgeting is WAY off.  It drives values down because many owners can't absorb such a big hit in two payments (especially in this economy).  I agree that more units will end up on the market likely resulting in values for those who have cash now.


----------



## modoaruba

By the way pool was redone and is very nice.


----------



## m61376

thinze3 said:


> Hmm.   Looks like bargains are soon to be had at AOC in the resale market. Imagine buying a 2BR gold annual for about $5K and then having an beautiful new unit to go too annualy. The $1300 special assessment will be over in one year.
> 
> FYI - Westin owners have been paying these high fees for a while now.
> 
> Terry
> 
> P.S. - Anybody want to buy a platinum Beachplace for $10K so I can buy 2 AOC's.   Just kidding Dave - MBP not for sale.



Interestingly, the AOC prices have not plummeted like you (and I) would have anticipated. I would have thought there would be a lot of units offered at bargain prices already. Are most owners just willing to wait it out?


----------



## marksue

There are many units for sale if you look at all the different sites, TUG, Redweek, Craigs list etc.  The 1 bedroom units are listed at Marriott for 18k.  If you ask marriott to buy back your unit they wont.  THey send you a form and will try to sell it for you.  If there was a market they would buy them back.  In the past if you had a 1 bedroom they would buy it right back from you and then sell it right away. With no market due to the MF and assesments, no one is buying them.


----------



## lovearuba

*aruba marriotts*

Its important to note that there are both ocean club and surf club units for sale on ebay at really low prices and people are not buying them.  I have seen surf club two bedroom sell for 9900.00.  You have to know where to look.  I posted my two bedroom ocean on ebay and the highest offer was 9900.00, it wasnt enough for me to sell so the point is that you can get them really cheap but its not limited to the ocean


----------



## Zac495

I agree with the poster that I bought a high end resort and want it to STAY that way - not get fancier like a Ritz. Why? Because I don't want to pay that much. I was willing to pay more than many timeshares - many people are happy with their 2000 traders - I wanted Marriott quality. I would have been fine with the assessment (you understand what I mean about fine - not the Snoopy dance -but okay) and a reasonable increase in fees. 

As for selling, Marriott isn't listing any - they have over 25 on their list for resale right now. I wouldn't sell it for less than a net of 15K even though I hate the fees. It's still a great place to vacation and a great trader. I'm not selling my stock at bargain prices either. I'm going to wait it out. Now, if someone offered me 15K, I'd sell. Any offers? :hysterical: (KIDDING, Dave!!!)


----------



## modoaruba

Just spoke to an owner this morning.
Most have no clue what is going on and that is why they get away with it.

This owner said that of course  they would like refurbishment.
When I asked if they knew what the cost will be they were astonished.

All of a sudden there was a complete change of attitude.
We all want to drive that ROLLS but at what fee?
I'll settle for the BMW.

By the way we are ready to sell one of our units(1BR OV) for a great bargain price of $5,000 off Marriotts prices.
We'll use the money to rent for the next 20 years.


----------



## modoaruba

*a thought*

If units are refu rbished with all new furniture and appliances,including furniture and fixtures in lobby, where does the GOOD old stuff go?

Are they throwing it out?

If not, is it being donated or sold?

If so does the monies or credits go back to the owners?


----------



## luvmypt

I guess my question is why are they going ahead with the renovations when our enonomy is in such bad shape? This just doesn't make sense to me at all.


----------



## timeos2

*Time is right to do the work but not to assess for it*



luvmypt said:


> I guess my question is why are they going ahead with the renovations when our enonomy is in such bad shape? This just doesn't make sense to me at all.



I don't know specifically about the OC but at my US resorts that are doing renovations in the next few years the slowdown of the economy is an opportunity to use empty space to accomplish the work. Then it will be ready when things pick up again.  It worked out that way in 2004 as well.  But one big difference is the money for the work is already in the bank - no special assessment or big fee increase required.  It may be a tough time to tell owners you owe big dollars for that right now.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Recycling Old Timeshare Furnishings.*




modoaruba said:


> where does the GOOD old stuff go?


When we were at Silver Lake Resort Silver Points (Kissimmee FL) in 2007, major serious renovation were getting ready to start in 1 of their large multi-floor condo buildings. 

All the old furnishings -- beds, sofas, chairs, tables, TVs, dressers, mirrors, washer-dryers, & I don't know what-all -- were being moved out & loaded into large trucks & trailers with a used furniture company's name painted on the sides. 

I assume the used furniture company had made a deal with the timeshare to take all the old stuff.  Getting it physically out of there was worth something to the resort -- otherwise the resort would have had to pay movers to take the stuff out -- so I imagine the price paid for the reusable items was pretty low.  

Even so, waste not & want not, eh ?   

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


----------



## marksue

Modo... Good luck trying to get 13k for your 1 bedroom unit.  I was asking 10k and there was not even a nibble .  I offered Marriott to buy my units back at what I paid and they wouldnt do it. It would have cost them less than if they sold it for me.  That tells you Marriott has no confidence they can sell Ocean CLub units with all the fees owners are forced to pay.  By the way Marriott the offer is off the table so don't come back now and make the offer.

Others have tried to sell but there are no takers.





modoaruba said:


> Just spoke to an owner this morning.
> Most have no clue what is going on and that is why they get away with it.
> 
> This owner said that of course  they would like refurbishment.
> When I asked if they knew what the cost will be they were astonished.
> 
> All of a sudden there was a complete change of attitude.
> We all want to drive that ROLLS but at what fee?
> I'll settle for the BMW.
> 
> By the way we are ready to sell one of our units(1BR OV) for a great bargain price of $5,000 off Marriotts prices.
> We'll use the money to rent for the next 20 years.


----------



## Dave M

marksue said:


> I offered Marriott to buy my units back at what I paid and they wouldnt do it. ... That tells you Marriott has no confidence they can sell Ocean CLub units with all the fees owners are forced to pay.


It doesn't tell us any such thing. Marriott's long-standing policy is that it doesn't buy timeshares from owners - whether at your resort or at any other resort. Marriott's policy on this topic is well documented here.

You may have some valid complaints regarding the issues you raised in starting this thread, but distorting facts to smear Marriott does a disservice both to those who read this thread and to the objectives you and others here hope to accomplish.


----------



## marksue

GOing back to Franks letter to all owners where he says the rood was not defective.  Here is one of the items the board identified in thier filings for a class action suit against Marriott.

(ii) Defective building: The Coop, as represented by the 
Board, establishes that it has been delivered a defective building by 
the Marriott Affiliated Parties. The Coop holds the opinion that the 
Marriott Affiliated Parties are liable for the costs and expenses 
incurred or to be incurred by the Coop in connection with the 
replacement of the metal roof, resolution of flooding occurrences, and 
the scheduled replacement of windows and the flat roof;

See page 3 in this thread for the complete class action document filed by the board.

Frank how can you contradict what you and the other board members were saying back in January. And now you expect the owners to believe you when you tell us the building is not defective.  

Board it is time to stand up against Marriott and not be Marriott.


----------



## vincenzi

*I Have A Question*

As stated in my earlier posts, I own 3 weeks with Marriott. One is in Hilton Head. And, I love the resort and the staff.  The fees have not increased dramatically. And thanks to TUG, I purchased it at a great price from an owner. There have been no problems whatsoever. I have always given high accolades to Marriott.  My question is: Why have the fees at the Marriott Aruba Ocean Club become so unreasonable? I know there have been several posts about refurbishing the resort.  It can't be due to refurbishing the resort, because my timeshare in Hilton Head has been refurbished and the fees didn't escalate. And, the units in Hilton Head are just as nice as the units in Aruba. So, I would have to assume that the exorbitant fees are due to replacing a roof which has always leaked and making other structural repairs to a defective building.  It just doesn't seem right to me.


----------



## Dave M

vincenzi -

Please see posts #243, 244 and 276 in this thread for copies of letters with detailed explanations of why the fees are going up significantly. There is much more than just the roof. Whether the increase and the special assessment discussed in those letters is justified and what to do about it is a lot of what this thread is about.


----------



## Luckybee

Bad news travels fast. For those who are interested there is now a lengthy thread on a major Aruba Forum about this situation which refers others to this thread as well. Here is the cite:

http://www.aruba-bb.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=65375&st=0&sk=t&sd=a


----------



## Sunbum

> There are many units for sale if you look at all the different sites, TUG, Redweek, Craigs list etc. The 1 bedroom units are listed at Marriott for 18k. If you ask marriott to buy back your unit they wont. THey send you a form and will try to sell it for you. If there was a market they would buy them back. In the past if you had a 1 bedroom they would buy it right back from you and then sell it right away. With no market due to the MF and assesments, no one is buying them



As I posted on a differant thread:

I checked www.redweek.com and www.vacationtimesharerentals.com, resale sites and ebay.com last weekend to try and confirm your comment. It appears to me that next to no one is trying to sell there Ocean Club units. I am looking for a 2 bedroom Platnuim and there is a total of three for sale, one being O.F. The asking prices are similar to a year ago. I am not seeing the dumping. Not even lower asking prices.


----------



## marksue

Take a look at the Aruba Ocean Club site and the Aruba-bb forums.  Mnay units for sale there.  I also have many emails of people who stopped trying to sell because there were no takers.

There is also an owner who has contacted one of the leaders in selling timeshare and he has told her that with the current fees and issues with the Ocean Club it is very difficult to sell them, without taking a major loss.


----------



## m61376

lovearuba said:


> Its important to note that there are both ocean club and surf club units for sale on ebay at really low prices and people are not buying them.  I have seen surf club two bedroom sell for 9900.00.  You have to know where to look.  I posted my two bedroom ocean on ebay and the highest offer was 9900.00, it wasnt enough for me to sell so the point is that you can get them really cheap but its not limited to the ocean


Yeah- I was aware of that and actually came home an hour late or I would have bought it. Interestingly, though, other sellers won't even consider that offer, and a broker touted by many here at Tug is pretty sure it won't pass ROFR (although in these times I tend to disagree, but I'm no expert here). I had e-mailed offers to several sellers and included a link to that auction and not one even responded with a counter offer.

Like Modo, I think most sellers are still holding out. I would think that OC weeks would sell for less than SC's- not getting into a "which resort is better" argument- just based on the fees for the next two years and the much higher base MF's on-going. I am just not seeing more of a dive in prices beyond the overall bottoming out of the market due to the economy. Admittedly, I was hoping to be one of those bottom feeders....


----------



## Kelly&Sean

Has anyone actually seen the details of the Budget and/or the Assessment?  I viewed my bill online and hit the link for the details but there was nothing to be found.  I called Marriott but they did not have any details either.  I have emailed the BOD and Corey but you know that they have not responded.  Please post a link or details if you have them.


----------



## autumn

*2008 budget*

Hi Kelly ,

   THere is a letter from the treasurer Melissa date 12/12/2008 with the break down and explanation of expenses and copy of 2008 budget on the Marriott Ocean Club website.


----------



## marksue

I just reviewed the letter from Michelle.  Here are my comments:

In 2008, the AOC Board reviewed the allocation details for shared labor and services between the Marriott hotel, Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club and Marriott’s Aruba Surf Club resorts. As a result of this review and an evaluation of owner feedback, a decision was made to proceed with dedicated Aruba Ocean Club General Manager, Administrative Assistant and Director of Finance positions. Although this represents a material change to the cost structure of AOC, the Board felt the additional expense was justified by the complexity of operating the resort at a consistent, annual occupancy of approximately 95%.*Why do we need to hire 3 people at an expense to the owners without getting owners agreement.  Ok, we bring on a GM, lets eliminate the FT assistant and Director of Finance.  We can still share those resources if necessary.  This is not financial responsibility *

•	Utility and Storm Deficit Recovery: This one-time expense offsets the 2008 year-end operating fund shortfall, driven by unforeseen utility cost increases, as well as from water intrusion related expenses due to Hurricane Omar.   Furthermore, although Hurricane Omar had little visibility in the U.S., the extensive winds and rain created water intrusion and unbudgeted cleaning and repair expenses, which are estimated between $85,000 and $100,000 and will put additional strain on the Association's operating fund; particularly as they are expected to fall short of our current insurance deductible, which equals 1% of the total building value.  *This should be paid by Marriott due to a defective building.  THe hotel and the SC had no such damage.  WHy would the OC only have the damage and it has nothing to do with the storm, it has to do with a building that was not properly waterproofed*


The increase in the Residential Reserve Fund contributions are needed to offset recent increases in local sales tax, BBO tax, customs duties, overseas shipping and international construction costs. These cost factors increased by almost 50% during the past 3 years, relative to prior years. Additional funding of the Reserve is necessary to maintain the resort at current high level of standards we all expect. Furthermore, the resort is now 9 years old, and it will be necessary to replace villa case goods, appliances and to refurbish our building façade. While the Association has and will continue to work with MVCI to ensure all construction and product warranties are honored by the developer and manufacturer, the combination of high occupancy, a tropical climate, trade winds and salt air have unfortunately resulted in a reduction of the normal life expectancy of some specific assets*why is the reserve fee 2 /12 time higher than the Surf Club.  Should not be this much of a difference.  It is either SC owners will get walloped or the OC is out of touch.*


o	Replacement of the Main Building flat roof is scheduled to be completed no later than the end of the second week of December 2008. Upon completion of this work, all roofs will have a manufacturer's and installer's warranty that protects the roof integrity for the next decade. MVCI is paying more than 43% of the total roof replacement cost, including the prorated value related to the 5-year period the concrete skeleton and roof of the current AOC building sat idle and MVCI's 12.2% share resulting from its ownership of the commercial areas in the AOC building.*Ok here it is the building sat idle for 5 years, yet Marriott built the skin around a shell that sat exposed for 5 years.  THis is validation that they should pay for the entire replacement since there have been problems since day 1..  The building was defective, the board knows it and yet refuses to fight marriott to do the right thing.*


Your input has been very valuable to the Board of Directors in setting the strategy for Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club. We have heard loud and clear from the Owners that we must have a Resort that meets our needs and expectations for now and the future. We can and will make this our priority. I hope that you agree with our financial plan and can assure you that your Board of Directors will continue to manage and reduce expenses at every opportunity.*I think the board many owners do not agree with the financial plan. In fact many owners wrote and complained about the upcoming fees and yet they raised them even more from what was announced at the General owners Meeting in October.  So my question to the board, who were you listening to, was it Marriott?*



FOr thos that have not seen the fees, here it is:


								                                                       1 Bedroom       2 Bedroom

2009 Maintenance Fee (Annual Operating & Reserve) 1,186.02	1,595.64

Utility and Storm Deficit Recovery from 2008 **	           71.02          101.96

Total		     			        1,257.04	1,697.60
** The Deficit Recovery for the 2009 billing is for one year only.


----------



## Kelly&Sean

I am looking for the actual budget.  Every year we get a line item budget that shows the costs and the increase from the prior year for each revenue and expense item.  I can not find this document anywhere.  The treasurers comments are all just self serving.  I want to see the costs.


----------



## marksue

I know the document you are talking about.  It usually comes with the bill.  I ahvent recieved the actual Bill yet, Have you?


----------



## Dave M

...and unless Marriott does something differently this time, the detailed budget will eventually be posted in the Owners' section of the resort's page at the MVCI website, but normally not until about February.


----------



## ecwinch

*Is this what you are looking for...*

MarkSue,

just curious - is this the solution you are looking for:

- That 10%+ of the owners request a special election
- That at this special election, enough votes are present to elect a "owner-orientated" Board that will aggressively pursue an agenda that will force Marriott to pay 100% of the cost of replacing the roof
- That the same Board will take action to "rollback" fees to 2008 levels - by reducing the reserve funding, eliminating the added staff, and reducing the planned refurbishment to some unclear "minimum" levels 
- That the volunteer board commit to a policy of increased owner communication - which in some of the posts seem to be a standard of responding to any and all e-mail correspondence/phone calls they receive from any owner, regardless of the time commitment that may require, and not shuffling this responsibility off to a paid employee of MCVI
- That Allan be reinstated to his role as Board President, assuming he is willing to resume this role. 

Am I missing anything...

And just so it's clear... while my first name is Eric, I do not work for Marriott and am not in their pocket. That seems to be the standard reply to anyone that fails to 100% agree with the prevailing tone of this thread. And no, I do not own at Ocean Club. I am a MCVI owner, but at HarbourPoint, which has endured a different set of challenges with MCVI. Only concerned as a fellow MCVI owner.

The one thing I am finding curious in this thread, is the absence of any input from Allan.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> MarkSue,
> 
> just curious - is this the solution you are looking for:
> 
> -That 10%+ of the owners request a special election
> - That at this special election, enough votes are present to elect a "owner-orientated" Board that will aggressively pursue an agenda that will force Marriott to pay 100% of the cost of replacing the roof
> - That the same Board will take action to "rollback" fees to 2008 levels - by reducing the reserve funding, eliminating the added staff, and reducing the planned refurbishment to some unclear "minimum" levels
> - That the volunteer board commit to a policy of increased owner communication - which in some of the posts seem to be a standard of responding to any and all e-mail correspondence/phone calls they receive from any owner, regardless of the time commitment that may require, and not shuffling this responsibility off to a paid employee of MCVI
> 
> - That Allan be reinstated to his role as Board President, assuming he is willing to resume this role.
> 
> Am I missing anything...
> 
> And just so it's clear... while my first name is Eric, I do not work for Marriott and am not in their pocket. That seems to be the standard reply to anyone that fails to 100% agree with the prevailing tone of this thread. And no, I do not own at Ocean Club. I am a MCVI owner, but at HarbourPoint, which has endured a different set of challenges with MCVI. Only concerned as a fellow MCVI owner.
> 
> The one thing I am finding curious in this thread, is the absence of any input from Allan.




I cant speak for Mark or anyone else but let me tell you what I, and a few other owners who I have spoken to wish to see. 

*- "That 10%+ of the owners request a special election
- That at this special election, enough votes are present to elect a "owner-orientated" Board that will aggressively pursue an agenda that will force Marriott to pay 100% of the cost of replacing the roof"
*

We very much hope that a special meeting is called and that at that special election, the current board explains why it is that there position has changed so dramatically, and further , that why when Allan started raising some of the issues mentioned here with Marriott, it was then, and only then that he was "removed" as president. I dont personally know whether 100%, 50%, 43% etc. is fair but what I do know is that I cant make that decision because the "new" board will not provide any info about the basis upon which they made their decision. They, along with Marriott simply say"the roof wasnt defective" which seems to run counter to the earlier opinion held by them which were apparently as a result of consultants hired by them . I would like for the board to "actively pursue Marriott for the engineering reports which Im sure they had prior to purchasing the original"shell" . I think as owners we are entitled to an explanation, so that a rational decision can be made as to whether Marriott needs to be pursued, and if one is not forthcoming from this board then absolutely one should be elected that would be accountable to the owners.

*"That the same Board will take action to "rollback" fees to 2008 levels - by reducing the reserve funding, eliminating the added staff, and reducing the planned refurbishment to some unclear "minimum" levels "*

The board had told us of the special assesment and I think it would be fair to say that it was expected. What most didnt know about at the time was that there were some significant issues surrounding the reason for the special assesment ie windows, roof, history of repairs and just who shoukd have been responsible. But to be hit with the special assesment at the same time as a huge increase in maintenance seems rather outrageous, particularily when no one was warned, again particularily when times are pretty darn tough for some people. Again I would like a resonable explanation before I would be prepared to say that this extensive refurbishment is justified now. Quite frankly the memos/letters put out by the board so far sound imho like Marriott advertising.

*"That the volunteer board commit to a policy of increased owner communication - which in some of the posts seem to be a standard of responding to any and all e-mail correspondence/phone calls they receive from any owner, regardless of the time commitment that may require, and not shuffling this responsibility off to a paid employee of MCVI"*

There's an old expression...if u cant take the heat ...I have sat on various "volunteer" boards. I make the choice given time constraints as to whether I am prepared to do so. If I dont have time to fulfill my obligations then I dont take the post. That is why currently Im not sitting on anything right now. I simply dont have the time. Anyone who takes on this position has to be willing to devote the time or simply not take it on.  
Our owners since inception have always had, until now , excellent communication from our board. I have owned since the first year the building was built. Over the years I had the need to contact Allan 4 times, once to offer a suggestion, once to sort out a problem that Marriott wasnt initially being responsive to, and on 2 further occasions regarding a specific request I needed to make because of my personal circumstances. When we first had communication many moons ago he didnt know me from Adam(or Eve as the case may be  In each and every instance he was able to assist and communicated both by email and phone with me. Again without sounding like a broken record, it is only after the tough questions were asked and our president "removed"  that communication ceased. Doesnt that seem a tad odd ? It does to me, and I want to know why. Why would you remove someone who is prepared to do that? Ask yourself this question. You have a president, that both the owners and Marriott both are apparently happy with. He communicates with all, spends countless hours of his time for no renumeration dealing with Marriott, and owners and represents the owners well. Would you remove this person as president..hmmmm...lets see....oops Marriott is no longer happy with him because he is asking for info and asking questions now....but the owners are still quite happy with him because he is protecting their interests.

*"That Allan be reinstated to his role as Board President, assuming he is willing to resume this role"*

If I were him I run for the hills but that would remain to be seen. I do want a president who doesnt hide behind the coatails of Marriott and who is willing to look out for my interests. I want to know what is going on at my building. I want a president who doesnt think that there should be a veil of secrecy and is willing to provide info to owners. I would be thrilled if Allan were prepared to resume that role but if it isnt Allan I am sure there are many others who would be willing to fulfill that position. 

*"And just so it's clear... while my first name is Eric, I do not work for Marriott and am not in their pocket. That seems to be the standard reply to anyone that fails to 100% agree with the prevailing tone of this thread. And no, I do not own at Ocean Club. I am a MCVI owner, but at HarbourPoint, which has endured a different set of challenges with MCVI. Only concerned as a fellow MCVI owner"*

Are you reading a different thread than I am. The only time it was suggested that there was a Marriott employee "working" the thread was in relation to one individual. Some of the things he was saying made no sense if he truly was an owner. You are asking some interesting questions as we all are at this point. I dont think you honestly believe that if this was your resort you wouldnt be entitled to know what was going on at your resort.

*"The one thing I am finding curious in this thread, is the absence of any input from Allan"*

Do not forget for one moment that Allan is still "on the board" and is I expect in a rather difficult position at this point. Many things could perhaps change the "difficulty " of his position at some point. I wouldnt think he'd be in a position to comment right now.


----------



## Kelly&Sean

marksue said:


> I know the document you are talking about.  It usually comes with the bill.  I ahvent recieved the actual Bill yet, Have you?




The bills are now on your account if you go to MVCI website.  There is an Adobe file.  It just shows the amount of money I owe.


----------



## marksue

Eric (and I am not accusing you of working for Marriott ) you are asking clarifying questions and I have no problem addressing them.  Other owners may have their own input as well.

Here is what I am trying to accomplish:

1) Get 10% of the sold units to call a special board meeting.
     In this meeting the goal is to:
 a) Change by-laws to promote more transparency enabling owners to be more informed of events from the board.  This mean:
i)  Posting minutes of all board meetings on the web within a reasonable time
ii) Owners have input to major financial impacts to the Ocean
iii) Ability to recall B-members of the board when Ocean Club best interests are not supported   
iv) Ensure accountability upon all board members
v) Make it easier for owners to call special board members
vi) Allow owners to attend or listen in to board members 
vii) President of the board is elected by the owners and can not be removed unless voted on by the owners   

b) Recall certain board members who have not performed their fiduciary duty to the Owners who elected them

c) For me personally I would like to get Allan back as president as he has been a fighter for the owners.  That is why Marriot board members and Ocean club board members forced him out as president the day before the general members meeting.  And the new president left prior to the general owners meeting so he wouldn’t have to face the owners. 

d) Elect a board that will look out for owners best interests currently Marriott is walking all over this board and dictating what to say and what to do.  This is obvious when you read the board memos, attend the owner meeting and speak to Marriott representatives (as I have spoken to a few of them).

2) I am looking for a board willing to do what ever is necessary to get Marriott to pay a fair share as well as recover costs associated with all the damages caused by the defective building since they started selling the units. The owners have been paying all repair costs due to flooding leaks etc, since inception. As stated previously, they never revealed to owners that the building shell stood for 5 years before they bought it.

3) I am not asking to a roll back to 2008, what I am asking for is a reasonable increase, as we all expected, (not 35 - 40%). I do believe that if Marriott pays the Ocean club back for all the work we have paid, plus the 750k for water proofing the building which was never done, repairing the roof which they are responsible, the cost for storm damage by Omar, which is due to the poor building quality), and paying the fair share of rent for the common space and receiving fair share from the stores will get us to a fair and equitable increase.

4) Reevaluate what we are doing in the refurbishment.  According to Marriott they recommended a refurbishment about 5 million less than the board is spending.  Before we start this refurbishment, lets relook and cut the costs.  This will prevent or at the minimum reduce the 2 years of assessments we a will be charged

4) You will not hear from Allan on this thread cause as a board member he could not post without the board authorizing the post.  I do know that owners that have written to Allan and have gotten communications back from him, not like when you write to our current president who has not responded to anyone.  I have been in touch with many owners who have written and spoken to Allan. He will not and can not get involved in this fight due to being on the board.

Eric I hope this answers your questions.  Feel free to reach out to me if you have any others.


----------



## modoaruba

*beach*

there is talk on beach at the OC about integrating OUR beach with the SC.
That will increase our value even moreso if true:annoyed:


----------



## marksue

Please find out more if you can. I and others would certainly want to know what is going on down thier.  The last I had heard was the Palapas were no longer available to SC owners.  As for just the beach it is a public beach so people can go where they like, they just cant use the palapas.  I have heard the SC is adding a 3rd pool or just more seating area.


----------



## vincenzi

*The Fees Are As Previously Posted*



Kelly&Sean said:


> The bills are now on your account if you go to MVCI website.  There is an Adobe file.  It just shows the amount of money I owe.



Yes, I checked out the website and the fees are indeed what had been posted in the earlier posts.  Our fees for two weeks at the Marriott Aruba Ocean Club are $3,395.20.  The fees are due on January 16, 2009.  Of course, the assessment fees will have to paid in addition to this amount.


----------



## Sunbum

I wonder if the rental rates at the OC will go up to coincide with the increase in MF's????

Not likely.

Although....After the renos, it will be awesome


----------



## lovearuba

*Rental fees at ocean club*

Hi
I sure hope the rental fees go up, I for one would never rent it out if my maintenance costs more than the rental income.


----------



## marksue

I do not think the rents will go up.  Supply and demand on the island will prevent an increase in rents.  For most people it pays to rent especially since Marriott is charging 440 a nite for a 1 bedroom.


----------



## Dave M

marksue said:


> Here is what I am trying to accomplish:
> 
> 1) Get 10% of the sold units to call a special board meeting.


I'm confused, Mark. Are you really seeking a special Board meeting as you state, or are you seeking a special meeting of the owners? The Board doesn't have the power to do some of the things you want (such as change the by-laws) and isn't likely to vote to do most of the other things you want (such as recalling certain Board members).


----------



## ilene13

We will be there on the 21st for 2 weeks so I will try to find out any info you ask me for.  During wks 51 and 52 SC owners have never been allowed to rent the palapas at our beach.  Also, I sent an email to Corey about payment for some of the fees and his reply did not address any of my questions.


----------



## marksue

Dave according to our bylaws and I did post them previously, we the owners can call a special board meeting by having 10 % of the units requesting the meeting. At this meeting we can propose recalling board members and then it is submitted to all owners to vote. Additionally our bylaws do allow the board to present changes to the bylaws.


----------



## timeos2

*Get the vote out*



marksue said:


> Dave according to our bylaws and I did post them previously, we the owners can call a special board meeting by having 10 % of the units requesting the meeting. At this meeting we can propose recalling board members and then it is submitted to all owners to vote. Additionally our bylaws do allow the board to present changes to the bylaws.



It isn't getting the changes proposed and up for a vote that's the problem. The BOARD does has to approve the proposal and then you have the real work to get at least 50% and often even a higher, super majority percentage, to vote yes. History at other resorts says that is nearly impossible to do.  Getting even the 10% of owners you need to call a special meeting may be harder than you think. Getting a 50%+1 majority to vote yes to almost anything is a virtually impossible task.  Not that you shouldn't try, but be aware that it is not an easy thing to do.  As you can see from just this thread not everyone sees things as you do.


----------



## marksue

John,

Agreed it isnt easy, but it is worth the effort.  As more and more people hear what is happening the more support we get.  I am not concerned with getting the 10% we are getting closer to the goal.  Once the mailing goes out for the special meeting i do believe there will a great deal of support for our recommendations.  

There is already a request out to get a list of all owners and contact information.  If we do not get it then Marriott will be required to supply it as part of a class action suit, which is close to being setup.  With the lack of response from the board and Marriott more people are suggesting a suit.  As always has been stated it is the path of last resort.


----------



## timeos2

*Guarded list (for a reason)*



marksue said:


> John,
> 
> There is already a request out to get a list of all owners and contact information.  If we do not get it then Marriott will be required to supply it as part of a class action suit, which is close to being setup.  With the lack of response from the board and Marriott more people are suggesting a suit.  As always has been stated it is the path of last resort.



At least in Florida - and most other areas from my understanding - you CANNOT get an owners list as an individual owner. Heck, we had to sue our developer to get it as the sitting Board members!  The management is correct (again, at least in Florida) that due to privacy laws they cannot give that to owners. Those lists are golden to a marketing company or another developer - they are right to protect them (and us owners) from misuse. 

The best we could do wass have the Board order the management to send out a mailing using the list (and they fought it but complied) but, again, you have to convince the Board to do that. We were the Board so it was our call.  While things could be different in another country the rules may still apply to US owners as we do cherish what little right to privacy we have.  It may be best if you research the laws to see if they can in fact legally release the owners list to you or anyone else that isn't on the Board/management before you spend any money chasing after something you cannot get.


----------



## Dave M

> At least in Florida - and most other areas from my understanding - you CANNOT get an owners list as an individual owner.


I agree, John. That topic has been discussed frequently on these forums, typically by disgruntled owners who want access to such lists. 

Even if Aruba's laws would allow release of an owner's list, the lawsuit would likely first have to be certified as a class action suit in a court (presumably in Aruba) that has jurisdiction over the Aruba timeshare management. Note that the timeshare is managed by an Aruba entity, not a U.S. entity. Marriott separates that management from its U.S. timeshare operations for most - if not all - of its non-U.S. timeshares. 

So a U.S. court could order the release of the list and the Board and the Aruba management company could simply ignore the order with no repercussions.


----------



## marksue

Inthe case of a class action suit the list must be released and if that is the direction we have to go we will.  It is up to the board and Marriott if we go in that direction.


----------



## m61376

If you play hard ball and decide to institute a class action suit, aren't you running the risk of creating a legal quagmire that just drags on while the property lies fallow? Given its location, it is unlikely for Marriott to walk away from the Ocean Club (since it lies between the Stellaris Hotel and the Surf Club), which is to your benefit, but aren't you worried that the much needed repairs and renovations just won't be done? Weather will wreck further havoc with the buildings and they will continue to deteriorate, to say nothing of the refurbishment of the interiors.

I don't own there, so I guess it is none of my business, but I would think that a class action suit would be shooting yourself in the foot, so to speak, because once you go down that road things will drag on for years.

Besides wanting Marriott to pay for more of the repairs (the roof and exterior work, etc.) what is it that the owners you contacted really want? Are people willing to hold off on the refurbishment, do they want less of a renovation, etc.? Since you are contacting a large percentage of owners, I would think that it would be in everyone's best interests to voice concrete and reasonable requests rather than threatening lawsuits. I just think that will be an expensive and long, drawn out process and, even if you ultimately win some concessions, the property and the reputation will be so adversely affected that you may not consider it a "win" in the long run.


----------



## Glenn Saunders

*Funny..*

Today I spent the better part of the afternoon reading through this thread and I actually have really enjoyed the commentary as it is obvious that there are only one or two persons who dominate the posts and seem to have a lot of internal anger. Perhpas they should see the movie Anger Management - it's equally as funny as reading through the 300+ posts. I was led to this site via Aruba.com as although I do not own timeshare in Aruba, I do own a house and spend about six months a year on the island. Over the years I have made many friends there, both from Aruba and elsewhere. It seems to me that the primary driver behind these comments is the rising cost of owning on an island - I hate to burst anyone's bubble but Aruba is surrounded by water and it is not a cheap place to live. I'll tell you from my own experience that over the past six years I have lived on an off in Aruba my expenses have doubled or tripled. Maybe timeshare is a less expensive approach than owning property there but costs have gone up all over and it is evident just by paying utility bills, dining out, etc. that costs there have increased dramatically. I used to be on a homeowners board as well (nver will live through that kind of nightmare again) and it is a thankless job. Just one question form an outsider point of view - if the Ocean Club (which incidentally is right down the street from me and I'll be there in a few minutes to watch the Dallas game at Champion's) has so much problems, as one angry person on this thread seems to keep making, then maybe someone should question the leadership of this Allan fellow since it seems he was the one in charge for so long. Go ahead now Mark and give me your best shot like you did with others; honestly, it doesn't bother me since I have my house and life is to precious to have so much inner anger. Good luck with your so-called quest for justice! I'll hand it to you though - you made my afternoon enjoyable just by reading your posts.


----------



## Luckybee

m61376 said:


> Besides wanting Marriott to pay for more of the repairs (the roof and exterior work, etc.) what is it that the owners you contacted really want? Are people willing to hold off on the refurbishment, do they want less of a renovation, etc.? Since you are contacting a large percentage of owners, I would think that it would be in everyone's best interests to voice concrete and reasonable requests rather than threatening lawsuits. I just think that will be an expensive and long, drawn out process and, even if you ultimately win some concessions, the property and the reputation will be so adversely affected that you may not consider it a "win" in the long run.




Unlike Mark dh and I along with a few other owners who I have spoken with are concerned less with the reno cost(this time) and more with the pattern we have seen develop re: the lack of transparency. Dont misunderstand, Im not suggesting that we shouldnt try to recoup many of the costs referred to by Mark, we should, but, my true genuine concern is what happens the next time, and what else is Marriott going to dictate to the board. 

I do not want to have to worry always about who is minding the store. Quite frankly I have better things to do then worry about my few timeshare weeks. In order to get back to that we need a board who is responsible and receptive to the owners. If it takes holding off on the renovations, or even Marriott walking away to get that then so be it. IMHO this would have never happened had Marriott *allowed* the proper communication, and disclosed that which should have been disclosed.

I very much agree with Mark that a class action is the last thing anyone wants here but what is the alternative . Should the owners simply roll over (or put a different way...be steamrolled by both Marriott and a board which seems comprised of those beholden to Marriott). Marriott could satisfy many owners by providing information, the president could satisfy many owners by answering questions, there are negotiations that could be had but all are being refused. 

It seems to me that there are a few here, (thankfully not the majority of owners who seem concerned) who simply would ante up, pay whatever is asked, not really care and frankly bury heads in the sand.  Fortunately Mark and others have taken the bull by the horns and are doing something. Change wont happen unless someone steps up and where it goes from here may be more in Marriotts hands than anyone who is organizing anything


----------



## Luckybee

Glenn Saunders said:


> Today I spent the better part of the afternoon reading through this thread and I actually have really enjoyed the commentary as it is obvious that there are only one or two persons who dominate the posts and seem to have a lot of internal anger. Perhpas they should see the movie Anger Management - it's equally as funny as reading through the 300+ posts. I was led to this site via Aruba.com as although I do not own timeshare in Aruba, I do own a house and spend about six months a year on the island. Over the years I have made many friends there, both from Aruba and elsewhere. It seems to me that the primary driver behind these comments is the rising cost of owning on an island - I hate to burst anyone's bubble but Aruba is surrounded by water and it is not a cheap place to live. I'll tell you from my own experience that over the past six years I have lived on an off in Aruba my expenses have doubled or tripled. Maybe timeshare is a less expensive approach than owning property there but costs have gone up all over and it is evident just by paying utility bills, dining out, etc. that costs there have increased dramatically. I used to be on a homeowners board as well (nver will live through that kind of nightmare again) and it is a thankless job. Just one question form an outsider point of view - if the Ocean Club (which incidentally is right down the street from me and I'll be there in a few minutes to watch the Dallas game at Champion's) has so much problems, as one angry person on this thread seems to keep making, then maybe someone should question the leadership of this Allan fellow since it seems he was the one in charge for so long. Go ahead now Mark and give me your best shot like you did with others; honestly, it doesn't bother me since I have my house and life is to precious to have so much inner anger. Good luck with your so-called quest for justice! I'll hand it to you though - you made my afternoon enjoyable just by reading your posts.




Im sorry I dont quite understand. You seem not to understand that it isnt just about money spent or being spent. 

Let me put this another way, you own your own home as do I, we also own another property which has a board. If you had condo instead of a single family home, and some on your condo bd after speaking with the original developer decided they were going to spend alot of money, increase your fees dramatically, change the makeup of the board by effectively silencing anyone on the bd who didnt go along with the developer, refuse to communicate any longer with owners, refuse to provide explanations to the owners, stop trying to access info from the developer and in essense look like a board who is representing the devloper not the owners, would you not be a little worried. If this was my condo I'd be looking to get out fast because that would be a recipe for eventual disaster. 

In all the real estate dealings I have had over the years(and there have been many) Ive never seen anything quite like the lack of transparency and accountability going on here where there wasnt something else going on. What that something else is remains to be seen.


----------



## qlaval

[_Message deleted. Please follow the "Be Courteous" Posting Rule or do not post._ Dave M, BBS Moderator]


----------



## Glenn Saunders

*Funny..*

Okay, you are right; I probably was too sarcastic. On a lot of these posts, which seem to be dominated by only a few people, money does seem to be one of the major issues. I agree that the increase itself is a lot but my point is that as an owner of property in Aruba my costs don there have doubled in the last year. I'm not happy about it but sometimes that's the way the cookie crumbles on an island where there are no natural resources and everything is imported. If you don't mind me giving my opinion on one other point that you brought up is that just by reading all the posts, how can someone like myself relate to the fact you state there is no transparency? I have been on our local highrise condo Board and we never wrote such lengthy letters as some people have copied from your Board and posted them on the site. To me it seems pretty detailed why the fees are increasing. Anyway, good luck again - just please don't ruin the property for all of us who go there to visit and spend our money at Champion's and in the stores. If I would be mad about something then perhpas you should talk to the sales people who probably told you it never rains in Aruba - that's all it did last night and looks fairly gloomy this morning as well.


----------



## Steve A

Lots of the costs related to the MOC are controlled by external factors (cost of fuel,) the Arubian government (wages, electricity,) and happenstance (hurricanes.) There is little that the Board or Marriott can do to control these factors. Plus, the Ocean Club is getting tired. Upgrades are needed. We were prepared for that several again although the costs have gone up, but what hasn't?

BTW, do you think that Marriott knew that the roof was faulty and lied to the owners about it when the HOA took over?


----------



## Steve A

> We were prepared for that several again although the costs have gone up, but what hasn't?



Should read: 





> We were prepared for this several years ago although the costs have gone up, but what hasn't?


----------



## marksue

Yes, I and many believe Marriott knew about the roof issues when they turned it over to the board.  THe building was leaking from inception, there was a great deal of repair work being done from inception, they were paying for the repairs until they turned it over.  If they were not aware of it they had to be blind.

Everyone else, once they satyed there,  knew the roof was a problem, why didnt they? They had to know, but of course they would never admit it.


----------



## marksue

Glen -

If you bought your house and it leaked from day 1 you would expect the builder to fix it.  The OCean club has leaked from day 1 was not waterproffed and there has been a great deal of damage over the years.  We just want the builder to take responsibility for the repairs and reimburse the owners for previous outlays due to the defective building


----------



## Sunbum

> [Message deleted. Please follow the "Be Courteous" Posting Rule or do not post. Dave M, BBS Moderator]



Folks, you are keeping Dave M. very busy editing your "not so nice" comments. Everyone is free to post their opinion and should be able to do so without getting slammed. 

Play NICE


----------



## Dave M

That's correct, Sunbum. 

Those whose posts have been edited and deleted - primarily those who are most vocal here about the problems at the resort - should take notice that this thread is very close to being closed, meaning that the topic would be off limits on TUG. If you wish to keep spreading the word on this forum, please follow the "Be Courteous" rule. Among other things, that includes showing courtesy and tolerance to those who have differing opinions.

I have issued a previous warning in this thread. *This is the last warning.*


----------



## Luckybee

Glenn Saunders said:


> Okay, you are right; I probably was too sarcastic. On a lot of these posts, which seem to be dominated by only a few people, money does seem to be one of the major issues. I agree that the increase itself is a lot but my point is that as an owner of property in Aruba my costs don there have doubled in the last year. I'm not happy about it but sometimes that's the way the cookie crumbles on an island where there are no natural resources and everything is imported. If you don't mind me giving my opinion on one other point that you brought up is that just by reading all the posts, how can someone like myself relate to the fact you state there is no transparency? I have been on our local highrise condo Board and we never wrote such lengthy letters as some people have copied from your Board and posted them on the site. To me it seems pretty detailed why the fees are increasing. Anyway, good luck again - just please don't ruin the property for all of us who go there to visit and spend our money at Champion's and in the stores. If I would be mad about something then perhpas you should talk to the sales people who probably told you it never rains in Aruba - that's all it did last night and looks fairly gloomy this morning as well.



Let me explain my position to you. Mark and others are more than capable of speaking for themselves. I dont speak for anyone but dh and I but I do think that there are a few owners who might agree with us. 

For the past while we were made aware of a "special assesment" by the previous board president. Prior to that he had specifically sent out info about what renovations were wanted by the owners and asked for input from the owners. Everyone had an opportunity to be heard. Keep in mind this was a president that Marriott seemingly thought was wonderful. During this process he became aware of certain "issues" which he and the board became aware of which dealt with the condition of the roof when the property was taken over by Marriott, the problems with the window warranty, etc etc etc. He started asking questions, and requesting info. It was then and only then that all of a sudden the following happened :

1. He was removed as president and became persona non grata
2. The new president failed to show at the meeting to deal with these issues
3. Those who were present from the board refused or ignored most questions asked or even worse in many cases deferred to the B member"marriott rep" to answer who of course provided no info
4. All info on minutes etc which acc'd to the bylaws must be avail were removed from the owners website
5. All email addresses for bd members were removed from the website
6. Owners were now , suddenly told after all these years that bd members will no longer answer questions only the gen'l mgr would, but he from all acc'ts is not fully informed and always has"to get back to you". I am aware from friends who just returned that he is now saying to anyone who asks about the renovations that he "cant answer any questions because he isnt told about the dealings of th board"
7.It would be a simple matter for Marriott to provide the reports re: the roof, etc. that they do have in there possession , they refuse to do so
8. Prior to the removal of the president, a lawsuit had been threatended by the board and the drafts etc. were also removed...obviously the board wasnt exactly content with Marriott either until they got to tinkering 
9 The material set out by Frank does not tell us what Marriott "knew" re the roof condition, the fact that the building wasnt "new" as sold to the owners, why they didnt deal with the window issue before warranty expiry etc. It only recites the same old ...which is not what the owners are asking about
10. While the owners were told about the special assesment no one was told about the dramatic increase in maintencance fees, which is higher than the prescribed limit in the bylaws which were obviously changed but the board couldn't/didnt tell the owners about
10. Suddenly a lockdown on info occured as to what the board were "allowed" to tell the owners(I will not elaborate on that at this point)

  I could go on and on but I wont for a number of reasons right now. Suffice to say that imho there is something untoward going on or I wouldnt be taking this position. Financially dh and I are in a recession proof profession so if it were just the costs involved I wouldnt be concerned although many others would be. For me it is all about making sure we as owners are provided with a board who are representing the interests of the owners not just the interest of Marriott which seems on the surface to be what is happening. If my assesment is wrong, let's just say that nothing the board has done/is doing nothing to alleviate that concern.

 Moreover and pls dont take this the wrong way but as much as it is great that you enjoy Champions and the stores that isnt my biggest concern at this point.


----------



## Dave M

Nice summary, Luckybee. As for your #8....





Luckybee said:


> 8. Prior to the removal of the president, a lawsuit had been threatended by the board and the drafts etc. were also removed...


...some of that info is still readily available. See this link, for example, to see the Board's resolution threatening to sue Marriott.


----------



## marksue

Dave,

I do beleive what you are refering to is the post by the AOC board denying there are owners who are suing Marriott.  It is a fact, see post 66 here, that the board did threaten to sue Marriott for many of the reasons I have stated here.

The issues have not gone away, yet the board is telling us they have a good relationship with Marriott.  I question why such a sudden change of heart.  What is the coincidence that Allan who fought for the owners and owners rights, is gone and all of a sudden their is a good relationship with Marriott?

The board is saying to talk to Corey regarding issues with fees and the assessment and the refurbishment.  Yet people who are in Aruba are getting a response from Corey that he has no information.

There is a complete blackout of data for the owners.  I can show you emails from people in Aruba, and I will not post them here, where there has been minimal response from the GM, the board, and MVCI customer support.

So if anyone wants to know why many of us are angry there it is.  There is no transparency to events around property we own, paid for and continue to pay for.

For those that are not owners, I have no problem with your posts, what I ask is put yourself in the shoes of an owner, who is being hit with a 35 - 40% increase in fees, plus an assessment, and not a word from the board, except for what Marriott is telling them to say, before you tell us why we shouldn’t take on this fight.  This is not about the money; it is about Marriott taking ownership of their responsibility for selling a defective building.  I have been saying that since day 1.  The fact we the owners have had to pay for all the damage is the reason for the assessment and higher reserve fees.

Allan was not a Marriott mouth piece, he was willing to fight, and he made headway over the years.


----------



## Dave M

No, I'm referring to exactly what I said, the Resolution of the Board which stated among other things, 





> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Marriott Affiliated Parties fail to finally resolve the issues as provided for in the preceding paragraph of this resolution, it shall be proposed in the meeting of the Board on January 28, 2008, to authorize and consent to the engagement of the law firms of Aruba attorneys David G. Kock and Antonio A.D.A. Carlo with the authorization and instruction to immediately initiate legal actions in the name and for the account of the Coop, be it in summary or ordinary proceedings, as the case may be, against one or all of the Marriott Affiliated Parties before the Aruba First Instance Court to obtain a final judicial resolution with respect to the issues contained in this resolution or any issue the aforementioned attorneys deem necessary and pertinent....


The complete resolution is at that link as well as earlier in this thread. My point was that, although much has been deleted from the website, there are available sources for most of the key info that was deleted..


----------



## marksue

So the question is, since the issue is not resolved, there is still negotiations going on, why has the board changed direction.  Something doesnt smell right and the continued silence reinforces that belief.


----------



## Steve A

From the Surf Club newsletter:



> This year we prudently managed the Association finances while facing the tough financial environment. The number one goal when planning the budget is to manage the bottom line and keep increases to a minimum. This has always been an ongoing challenge in Aruba. In 2008 keeping costs
> in line with budget, whilst still maintaining the integrity of the vacation experience, has become a major concern of the Management Team especially due to the spike in the price of oil and the affect this has on many facets of our business. According to the Centrale Bank of Aruba (http://www.cbaruba.org/cba/readBlob.do?id=1222), “in July 2008, the consumer price index increased by 10.2% compared to the corresponding month in 2007”. This is significantly higher than the United States and is having a far-reaching impact in all facets of our business.
> Our latest forecast projects the 2008 Operating Budget to be 8.4% over budget or $2,083,155.00 or $90.17 per unit week and 77% or $1,604,714.00 is directly related to the local utility company charges.
> This past July, the Aruban government enacted a 3.1% increase to the minimum wage. Labor cost for all departments has increased due to the unexpected and unbudgeted 3.1% increase in the minimum wage. This increase, coupled with the current shortage of labor on the island, has double the negative impact on the labor market.


----------



## marksue

Steve,

I got the same email from the surf club.  THey like the OCean club state the infaltion rate as of July when the annualized interest rate as of September was 9.1.  Even though the surf club was up 12%, which is high, I understand the additional costs.  The Ocean club was increased 35 - 40% due to the costs owners have had to lay out to continually pay to fix up all the leaks in the Ocean CLub.

I did get a copy of the 2009 budget for the Ocean and surf clubs, and compared the two.  There are many items that did not make sense as to why the Ocena club costs were higher than the surf club.  I will post those shortly.


----------



## lovearuba

*marksue*

Thanks for keeping this thread going.


----------



## marksue

MVCI is now ignoring all calls from Ocean Club owners. I was told by MVCI all calls regarding the OCean Club must go through Corey, the GM.  THe thing is Corey needs to go to the board for answers, yet the board does not supply answers.

It seems like thier is a complete lock down of communications from Marriott, to the GM, to the Board.  SO if you want to know why we want a special meeting of the board to change our by-laws for more transparency this is the reason.  Owners in Aruba now are not getting any answers.


----------



## Dave M

So, if the Board is stonewalling owners as you say, why would you believe that there would be any chance at all that the Board would vote to send a possible change to the by-laws to the owners for a vote? I'm very confused as to what makes you believe the Board is on your side, something you'll need if you hope to get them to pass such an unusual (for a timeshare HOA) resolution. A small group (e.g., 10-20%) of owners has no power to force them to do that.


----------



## marksue

The by-laws state that if you get 10% of the owners to call a special meeting then a meeting must be held.  THat is how owners can recall board members thus allowing us to vote on new members and change the bylaws. I have posted previously the section from the governing document that covers recalling of board members.


----------



## Dave M

Yes, I understand that 10% of owners can call a special meeting. That's not what I asked. Could you please respond to my question about changing the bylaws? Your link about recalling directors has no teeth for forcing the Board to recommend a change to the bylaws, As owners, you don't have that power.


That 10% would not be able to vote any Board members out or force the Board to take any action that it deems unwise. The HOA, already knowing from this thread what you plan, would simply announce, as it is required to do, to all owners that a special meeting was to be held and would include an election ballot with the announcemnt. The overwhelming majority of owners, who have no knowledge of this thread, would have no reason to vote for other than the HOA candidates. "Those voting at the meeting" include those in absentia who vote by proxy.


----------



## Dave M

I'm not trying to derail your concerns, Mark. But if you expect to have success, you need a plan that fits within the governing documents and that has a reasonable chance. Since you have advertised to the HOA and to Marriott what you plan to do, it's easy for them to be well prepared and to use the same rules that you hope to rely on to make you go away. They have some of the best legal advice available anywhere. It seems clear you haven't yet paid for that type of advice, something you'll absolutely have to do if you expect success.

What I'm trying to do is to get you to think things out rationally rather than emotionally, as it appears you have so far, and come up with a plan that fits with those governing documents.

So I repeat, how do you as a small group of owners, expect to force the Board to do something (such as recommend to owners that the bylaws be changed) that they don't want to do?


----------



## marksue

By calling a special meeting we make our proposals, which are then sent to the general owner population for a vote.  

The board is required by the bylaws to present our recommendations to the general owner population.  We would present our case in the ballots to the owners.  We need 50% plus 1 to pass each adendum.  THey also vote on each individual board member for recall.  I would push that if Allan wants to remain on the board that we do not recall him.  We would then have to vote on new board members.


----------



## hydroman

*Even more new news*

Having just returned from AOC last week, I can assure you that numerous people are upset about the fees, especially since Cory finally announced them at the Tuesday evening owners meeting.  Many will join the special owners meeting effort.  Only thing new to add is that Cory is telling people that negotiations are going on to re-integrate the pool/beach areas between Surf Club and Ocean Club, i.e. we use their "lazy river", they use our beach and palapas.  Some of our owners are really upset about this latest development since, as we all know, their isn't enough pool or beach area for the overbuilt Surf Club.  Curious what others have heard about this and their views?  Wonder if this means a payment from Surf Club owners assn to us, especially since we have more space and they want to get it.  Seems like Marriott will bend over backwards for  Surf Club.


----------



## hydroman

*Special election*

How will we know when the magic 10% is reached and who is collecting the names?  I did get an e mail from someone, to remain nameless, who said he was keeping track and over 500 unit weeks had been signed up, but that was a few weeks ago.  Not sure others who never got that e mail know how to submit their names, since I guess we can't get an e mail list of all owners.  For those of you going to AOC soon, try standing in the pre-7:30 AM beach towel hut line, looking for a palapa, and mention loudly the new costs and that owners are trying to get a special election.  I was able to pass the thought on to many interested owners last week doing that.


----------



## Dave M

Four questions, Mark, again designed to improve your chances. Please give careful thought to the issues. If you can't come up with detailed legal language that supports everything you want to do and how you want to do it, you might be wasting your time and that would be unfortunate. I wish I had answers to the following questions for you, but I don't have a copy of the bylaws.

1) Can 10% of the owners really force the Board to disseminate your recommendations (e.g., for changes in the bylaws) to all of the owners? I haven't seen that in any bylaws language you have quoted. All I saw you post was that the Board has the power to propose changes to the bylaws (post #320). Further, you could speak on the issues at the Special Meeting, but that wouldn't reach the many who would have already voted by mail before the meeting starts.

2) Can you really change the bylaws with a vote of 50% +1 of those voting, as you seem to imply? I have copies of bylaws for four Marriott resorts, not including yours. All of those require more than 50% (or sometimes two-thirds) of all owners or ownership interests (not just those voting)  to change the bylaws. Typical language (from Grand Chateau): "...these Bylaws may be amended by the vote or written assent of a majority of Owners...." And from Custom House, "...the [bylaw] amendment shall be adopted if it is approved by not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the total votes of all members...." If you have ever served on a timeshare HOA or other large HOA, you know that it's just about impossible to get as much as a 40% response to a vote request, let alone get 50% of the total ownership voting with you, especially when you consider that the Board would likely suggest to owners that your recommended changes would be disruptive and costly to the HOA.

3) What's your plan for lobbying the owners to vote for what you want? I don't see anything that gives you the right to include in the special meeting notice your own arguments for removing one or more directors. It also appears that you need more than 50% of all owners, not just those voting, to remove a director. See the specific language that requires a majority of "all of the voting interests", not just a majority of those voting. (I'll grant that there is some other contradictory language that could require a court to rule on.) That's just about impossible to get, because so many people will throw away the ballot rather than bother to read it and respond. And a fair number will be impressed with the HOA's plea for the status quo and might not have in front of them your reasons for wanting removal. Even if you are successful, because all owners get to vote on new directors, all candidates would be included in the initial notice to owners, likely with the HOA's recommendations.

4) As to one of your primary issues, nothing I have seen in what you have posted gives 10% of the owners any authority to force the Board to roll back the fees or refuse to complete the 43% roof agreement with Marriott or force a vote of the owners on the issues. How can you accomplish that, especially since the Board is now saying it's all resolved?


----------



## timeos2

*Listen to the man. Good advice and its free!*

Dave - What a great, factual reply. I second everything he states as it falls in line with every legal action I've dealt with involving timeshares and the way documents are written for them.  

I hope Mark doesn't think non-owners at OC are ganging up on him as that isn't the case (at least I hope not).  What I'm reading is replies trying to point out just how hard it really is to force a Board/resort/developer to do anything as one or a small group (out of thousands) of owners. That doesn't make it wrong to try nor does it mean that everything a Board/management does is 100% corect. It does mean you have to choose your battles, often compromise on your goals and use the least expensive and friendliest approach to gain support.  While the ultimate threat of a lawsuit / class action is always implied it is best saved as the last resort rather than the first round volley.  

I wish the owners the very best as ultimately the majority of them will decide where this all ends.  Having a resort in turmoil is not a good outcome nor is one with massive delinquencies.  My hope all of you get together and work out an acceptable answer that is unlikely to make either side completely happy but will be in the best interest of the resort and its owners going forward.  Find a way to make it happen.


----------



## pianodinosaur

I have been watching this controversy with great interest eventhough I do not own at Marriott. I sympathize with marksue and other owners who have been hurt by Marriott in ARuba.  I am not a lawyer but as I have said in previous posts it is best if this matter can be resolved out of court. I am writing this post to compliment the moderators on their sage advice.


----------



## irish

in regards to the sharing of the beach and palapas with the surf club. PLEASE, i don't mean any offense here to owners at the surf club but NO!! i am expected to pay over $1200.00 in m/f's plus 2 years of s/a and then may not even be able to get a palapa at my resort??? no way in h***. IF that happens, i will be putting my unit up on redweek at a price well below what's being listed now..


----------



## iamnotshopgirl

irish said:


> in regards to the sharing of the beach and palapas with the surf club. PLEASE, i don't mean any offense here to owners at the surf club but NO!! i am expected to pay over $1200.00 in m/f's plus 2 years of s/a and then may not even be able to get a palapa at my resort??? no way in h***. IF that happens, i will be putting my unit up on redweek at a price well below what's being listed now..



An no offense to OC owners. The same can be said about OC taking over the lazy river. An yes, Irish we Surf Club owners are paying $1200 in MF's with $143 more to the reserve fund. Just more Marriott boondoggle. Broken promises to owners of SC that there would be ample room for both resorts. But since it is not in writing it means nothing. So now we have negotiation.

bob


----------



## m61376

iamnotshopgirl said:


> An no offense to OC owners. The same can be said about OC taking over the lazy river. An yes, Irish we Surf Club owners are paying $1200 in MF's with $143 more to the reserve fund. Just more Marriott boondoggle. Broken promises to owners of SC that there would be ample room for both resorts. But since it is not in writing it means nothing. So now we have negotiation.
> 
> bob



Thanks Bob for presenting the flip side to the argument. This is an old debate which has been rehashed many times and I don't see any way to make everyone happy. I think the only fair solution is let each owner use what they own. I, for one, really resented the OC owners being allowed to use the SC's pool facilities without being willing to share their beach facilities. As a SC owner, I felt that was too one-sided an arrangement, and was very glad when they ended that. I know it was originally in place as a "give back" for the SC using the OC lobby before their own was completed.

Unless owners at both resorts can agree to share both beach and pool facilities, I think just sharing of pool facilities is an untenable arrangement. While not all OC owners agree, I think the majority prefer the SC's pool (substantiated by more OC owners using the SC pool than vice versa when the pool facilities were shared). Conversely, while the beach at the OC and the SC is contiguous, there are more palapas per keyed room at the OC so the beach is considered "better." I think owners at each resort have to be willing to share their facilities, or there shouldn't be any sharing at all. While I would think it would be nice if all Marriott owners could enjoy both properties, I can certainly understand that OC owners might prefer the quieter atmosphere and the facilities as they bought into, and I respect that.

It would probably never be done this way, but I would like to see owners polled before a final determination was made.


----------



## marksue

Being an owner in both resorts, I do think everything should be kept seperate.  I do like the suggestion if you want to use the other resorts property there should be a minimal charge which each resort can use to maintain the property and offset MF increases.  The only thing you may run into is when they sold the units, they did say you could use both resorts.

I am not sure how this would work in holiday seasons, since the Surf Club can not handle the volume of their own owners.  The expanding out of the pool area will help, but I am not sure it will be enough.


----------



## marksue

Dave,

I don't have any governing documents except for the OCean Club and if you can get a hold of one it may be useful for you, because it sounds as if the ones you have seen are different then 

To answer your questions. 

1) The 10% will enable the calling of a special meeting.  After that it says a majority of the voting members are required to recall a member.  To me a majority is 50% + 1.  There is no other definition of majority.

Notice for the meeting must be given 14 days in advance so that is enough time to get everyone's vote.  How the votes are accumulated is not discuss so a plan will have to be put together to get the votes.

2) Bylaw changes have the same terminology of needing a majority.


3) We are in the process of getting a list of all owners so we will be sending out notice of what we are trying to achieve.  

4) we will need to get a new board in place to take over the negotiations with Marriott as the exiting board is not negotiating.  The new board may have to re-initiate their law suit against Marriott.  The board has already opened up the door to issues by now publicly stating the building was not defective when their law suit email called the building defective.

I may not have all the answers right now, but as time goes on and working with a new board we can develop a plan.  The current approach has been worked out since this effort started.  It certainly was not this far along when we first started this effort.

There are already lawyers involved, some who are owners and outside council that will help with these issues as well.


----------



## Dave M

Mark - 

If you really believe you can accomplish your objectives without being able to cite the specific provisions that allow you to do what you want to do, I believe you are doomed to failure. You were unable to address the bylaw language that supports your cause for any of the four issues I raised, nor to overcome the bylaw language that I cited in #3. 

I feel sorry for your cause. You desperately need someone who has legal training to analyze in a methodical manner the bylaw provisions and how they apply to what you want to do.  

As you can read, I'm not alone in my observations. To simply say or imply that I'm wrong won't get you anywhere with the intense battle of legal minds that you are headed for.

You have a passionate cause. But passion alone, when you misread the CC&Rs, will leave you on the outside looking in.


----------



## marksue

Dave the information I gave you in my response was from the governing documents.  So i know the steps i have to take.  If you check section 6.3 and 14.2.  But if you don’t have a copy of the governing rules then it won’t do you any good.  I am not about to type the entire thing out.

I know what I am doing and what needs to get be accomplished.  I am not alone in this endeavour and there is a legal person who is part of the team to get changes in place.


----------



## Eric

The other thing I think Mark is mssing is he is looking from the outside in and assuming things like the roof was damaged already. Can he be sure the HOA does not have facts to back up this claim ? I don't think so. What I am saying is he doesn't have all the fact and when he does, he might find that the HOA has lots more info that they are not sharing with him at this point. I think its a noble cause but am pretty sure he is way over his head.





Dave M said:


> Mark -
> 
> If you really believe you can accomplish your objectives without being able to cite the specific provisions that allow you to do what you want to do, I believe you are doomed to failure. You were unable to address the bylaw language that supports your cause for any of the four issues I raised, nor to overcome the bylaw language that I cited in #3.
> 
> I feel sorry for your cause. You desperately need someone who has legal training to analyze in a methodical manner the bylaw provisions and how they apply to what you want to do.
> 
> As you can read, I'm not alone in my observations. To simply say or imply that I'm wrong won't get you anywhere with the intense battle of legal minds that you are headed for.
> 
> You have a passionate cause. But passion alone, when you misread the CC&Rs, will leave you on the outside looking in.


----------



## lovearuba

*ERIC*

Marksue has a lot more information then he can provide on this website.  He would be foolish to reveal his hand.  This will all come out, it just needs to be done the right way.  Marksue's intent through this website is to solicit the names of people that own Aruba Ocean club so they can be involved in this cause.  The intent is not to continually defend his position with non-ocean club owners, although since this is a public website it is expected that a difference of opinion by Marriott's close supporters like you will continue to be voiced.


----------



## Eric

So you didn't read my post ?
I am giving my opinion. I hope whatever is best, happens. I am not for or against either side, I am just expressing my opinion. I realize by not being 100% for his cause, you have a need to state otherwise.





lovearuba said:


> Marksue has a lot more information then he can provide on this website.  He would be foolish to reveal his hand.  This will all come out, it just needs to be done the right way.  Marksue's intent through this website is to solicit the names of people that own Aruba Ocean club so they can be involved in this cause.  The intent is not to continually defend his position with non-ocean club owners, although since this is a public website it is expected that a difference of opinion by Marriott's close supporters like you will continue to be voiced.


----------



## hydroman

*to Eric and others*

Part of the continuing problem here is that AOC owners are facing a lack of transparency.  I'd be very curious if any other Marriott timeshares pay as much as we will for our one or two bedroom units in either or both--maintenance fees plus assessment.  30-40% maintenance fees plus the assessment.  I doubt it.  If the owners had the type of information you are talking about, maybe the issues could be reduced, but we don't.  The current Board, as has been said before herein, won't even return e mails.  They put out pages of alleged information as if they were facts, but refuse to provide the sources and copies of such information.  None of the owners would want to sue or even recall the Board if transparency and cooperation existed.  We have no faith in those elected, primarily by proxy.  We are just as concerned that the current increases are but a beginning.  Based on their current practices, how can we know what the future holds for us?  Two, three, or more years out.  The current "official" information won't even commit to the size of the assessment for 2010, although the prior Board did commit to such.  If they made some effort to reconcile these concerns and reach compromise, maybe we could move forward, and agree with them to some extent.  Marriott should be ashamed of themselves for allowing owners to be treated this way.  It seems to contradict everything we were told when we bought these units as to Marriott's way of doing business.  There must be certain items that really need fixing immediately and there are certainly others that could be postponed for a few years, to spread out the costs and reduce the immediate fees.  Maybe they could agree to a separate and independent committee of owners, some of which have been very vocal here, to go over all the data and make PUBLIC recommendations for moving forward that coud result in a workable compromise.  They've proposed nothing except keeping quiet and moving forward, potentially to sign contracts for the work and put us in a position where breaking the contracts would be more expensive than letting them go forward.  Now is the time for building trust, not tearing us apart.


----------



## Dave M

Yes, all of the Hawaii Marriotts have operating fees that are higher than Ocean Club's. Why? Because Hawaii, like Aruba, is a high-cost location. Ocean Club's reserve fee is high, but the special assessment, which will disappear after two years, is eclipsed by some others, notably Kauai Beach Club's multi-year special assessment that included a 2BR charge of $833.99 for a single year (2007)! So in 2007, for example, KBC's 2BR total fee was $2,226.10! For 2008 it was $1,832.57 and for 2009 it will be $1,731.49. The new (yes, "the new") Maui 2BR will have a total fee of $1,817.92 for 2009, and that's with no special assessment.

You can see all of the fees through 2008 for all Marriott resorts in the historical database of fees accessible from the FAQS for this Marriott forum or from the Marriott section of TUG Advice (link at the top of this page).


----------



## irish

marksue,

first let me say how grateful most/some of  the owners at the oOC are for all you are trying to do to get the bottom of this debacle.

now as to the suggestion of a minimal fee being imposed as to use of the facilities at OC AND SURF, i seem to remember when the fees for palapa use at the OC where first incorporated the profits from this were going to be used to OFFSET THE M/F'S. well, we all see how that worked out!! 

JMO,  i feel these 2 properties facilities should be kept separate. i purchased at the OC strictly for the beach area, and when i purchased(preconstruction),
the surf club was never ever mentioned. when we were contacted by email for preconstruction sales at the surf, i contacted an agent at the MARRIOTT sales department and made some inquires and this agent referred to it as the MARRIOTT DEBACLE. he/she told me i would NEVER be happy with the beach area at the surf and if i was interested in acquiring a 2 bedroom unit i should just stay with the OC. 

now let me add, i think the surf club is a lovely resort. i watched it being built and it turned out beautiful. owners are happy there and that's great.
however, keep the properties separate!!!.  JMO


----------



## lovearuba

*Irish*

You should make sure Corey Guest hears your concerns. I'm not saying he will have much influence but he does seem to be the only one that will respond to the owners.

Why would anyone want to integrate the two resorts?


----------



## marksue

*Irish*

That is true the fees were supposed to offest MF.  I own in both buildings and agree they should be kept seperate.  I am just not sure how you can 100% do that when all you need to do to get towels is give a room number.  With the right color towel you can use the other resort.

I know when I went through the sales process for the SC, I was told the 2 resorts would be sharing facilitites.  But as we know all they wanted to do was sell and it didnt matter what they told youa s you and I both got different information.


----------



## marksue

*Eric*

If you look back at one of the previous posts, the board itself called the roof defective.  It was part of thier basis for a lawsuit against Marriott.  Now that Marriott agreed to pay a portion of the roof it is no longer defective and all of a sudden the board doesnt say anything.  They have the proof and the owners know there is a problem.  If you ever had stayed at the resort you would notice the leaks and floods whenever it rained.  It has been common knowledge for a long time the building had problems.


----------



## mike361

*Unfair Increases To Owners*

Whoever heard of anything increasing from $1100/year to $1700/year for a 2 bedroom, 1 gold week unit? Rather than trying to recall the Ocean Club board for their unreasoned attempt to force many people into selling their units at a huge loss to Marriott, a restraining order preventing the increase from being implemented makes more sense.  The increase is to be billed next month.  There isn't sufficient time develop a petition and get the required number of signatures before we will  be obligated to pay an  amount many cant afford.  On top of this maintenance fee increase, there is a special assessment of $600 for 2 years beginning in June.  Both of these increases benefits Marriott to the extreme disadvantage of the owners.


----------



## Eric

Another well thought out plan. On what basis will you get that restraining order ? That you as an owner, who voted in the present HOA, doesn't like what they have done ? That sounds reasonable !!
Do you know the person who suggested Marriott give all Ocean Club owners 100% of there purchase money back ? I think her idea has a better shot of happening. 



mike361 said:


> Whoever heard of anything increasing from $1100/year to $1700/year for a 2 bedroom, 1 gold week unit? Rather than trying to recall the Ocean Club board for their unreasoned attempt to force many people into selling their units at a huge loss to Marriott, a restraining order preventing the increase from being implemented makes more sense.  The increase is to be billed next month.  There isn't sufficient time develop a petition and get the required number of signatures before we will  be obligated to pay an  amount many cant afford.  On top of this maintenance fee increase, there is a special assessment of $600 for 2 years beginning in June.  Both of these increases benefits Marriott to the extreme disadvantage of the owners.


----------



## marksue

Eric said:


> Another well thought out plan. On what basis will you get that restraining order ? That you as an owner, who voted in the present HOA, doesn't like what they have done ? That sounds reasonable !!
> Do you know the person who suggested Marriott give all Ocean Club owners 100% of there purchase money back ? I think her idea has a better shot of happening.




Another valuable post. Eric, you have yet to provide value.  At least those who don't agree with this effort ask intelligent questions.  WHy do you even post here.  You are not an owner or anyone who is asking quality questions.


----------



## Dave M

I agree. It is "a valuable post". Mike suggested getting a restraining order. Eric appropriately made it clear, in his own way, that there is no legal basis for obtaining such an order. Despite your ridicule, Eric has made a number of positive contributions in an effort to help guide you to a realisitc, workable action plan.

You can make light of posts that don't follow your thinking, but the more you ignore the real obstacles in your way, as you have been doing, the more likely it is that you will fail. 

Along those lines, I'm still curious as to why you don't respond with the specific language in the CC&Rs that you believe give you the authority to accomplish each of the things you want. So far, the only supporting language you have quoted is for removal of a director and even that language is ambiguous, as I pointed out.


----------



## Eric

As I have mentioned, I own @ Surf Club. As pointed out, I am just pointing out what is not very practical in the real word. The off the cuff suggestions like "give the money back" and "get a restraining order" makes the owners look under qualified for the high level stakes your are in. Also as I have pointed out, if indeed the HOA does not have the owners best interests at heart and if indeed Marriott is short changing the owners then I would hope the owners win out on thier demands. I just think some people comments are the  equivalent of taking beebe guns into a nuclear war. 





marksue said:


> Another valuable post. Eric, you have yet to provide value.  At least those who don't agree with this effort ask intelligent questions.  WHy do you even post here.  You are not an owner or anyone who is asking quality questions.


----------



## m61376

I think what's happened here is that some of the owners are rightfully outraged by a perceived injustice that they are being almost blinded by that anger. What Dave and Eric and a few others are trying to convey is that sometimes it is more helpful to swallow hard and try to let cooler heads prevail and carefully review documents to see what you can legally accomplish.

No one is telling you that you are wrong- but you can be right in theory and your methodology may not accomplish anything. In reality, you are unlikely to accomplish everything you are determined to and, by drawing a line in the sand with Marriott and the BOD, you may accomplish nothing. 

Keep in mind that, besides alerting other owners here to join your cause, you are also alerting Marriott and their legal team (my guess is that this thread and similar posts elsewhere are being closely followed) and they are likely one step ahead of you. I think Dave's advice, as usual, is very sound- you really need to sit down with the lawyer(s) that you are working with and decide on what you can reasonably accomplish and be willing to accept that, as unfair as it may be, it may not be reasonable to get everything.

Also, I'd look at how Marriott came up with accepting 43% responsibility for the roof and consider the possible downside of contentious negotiations- could they renege on that, and what will the additional cost be if they do so? I am not saying to roll over and let them trample over you, but keep in mind they do have the upper hand here. Because of its location (prime beachfront situated between 2 Marriott properties) I don't think they would just let the OC fall into disrepair, but getting an injunction could create a stalemate that would even be worse for owners. If nothing is done for a year even, the property damage may increase the costs exponentially, and the resort may never recover from the reputation damage. If so, your investment there may become worthless. I don't think these are considerations you can ignore.

You are right, to a certain degree, in that it is really the business of people who own at the resort. But, sometimes it is worth listening to outside advice, because cooler heads prevail.


----------



## lovearuba

*Cooler heads*

Hi 
I would agree with the comments that folks outside the ocean club have very valuable input.  The intent of this thread was to notify and keep the ocean club owners informed of the situation.   Marksue has taken a lot of heat for getting the information posted.  Many of us are not lawyers and are looking to be treated right.  What has happened with the fees for the ocean club and the abrupt removal of our president because he was stepping up to the challenge and openly disputing what was happening is unfair and needs to be addressed.  

Many of us have posted suggetions on what should be done and we have received great input on why some of those suggestions would not work given the paperwork we have in our contracts.  What we do not appreciate is when our suggestions are shot down by rude and insulting posters.  This is why we question their liaison with Marriott.  If you truly wanted to help you would treat the posters that own at the ocean with respect as Dave does.  

So my suggestion is that people continue to feel comfortable posting suggestions and others that have valuable input on why it would or would not work post their opinion but post it kindly so we are not insulted and we can actually benefit from the information.

Have a great day


----------



## ecwinch

As a number have pointed out, the relief you are seeking does not seem to be realistic given how we know timeshare resorts to operate. For instance, if you were able to get a restraining order, what impact would that have on the resort? So even if you were able to achieve that objective, the outcome would not be favorable. The restraining order would require the resort to operate on less revenue then they currently require, so reductions in service, or personnel, or funding the reserves, or the refurbishment would have to take place.

Also, the elected BOD approved the budget, and based on that budget it is logical to assume that commitments have been made (contracts let, etc.). They have the legal authoritity to take these actions, and what would be the implications if a "pro-owner" BOD attempted to reverse those decisions. For instance if the new BOD decided to reverse the decision to have a seperate mgt team for the Ocean Club. There would obviously be severance costs associated with doing that, maybe even an employment contract involved, and possibly the MCVI mgt contract.

I think there are a number of issues here that have become co-mingled. The core issue that troubles me, is that you have elected BOD that made decisions based on the best information available in a difficult environment of an aging resort with high usage operating in a high cost area. Now a group of owners wants to reverse those decisions, and to some degree is suggesting that the decisions should have been voted on by the general membership. Excluding the costs of operating a resort in that fashion, that method does not seem feasible.

And the costs associated with special election would add more unbudgeted expenses to the resort.


----------



## timeos2

*Settlement happens most of the time. Why pay big $$ to get there?*



ecwinch said:


> Also, the elected BOD approved the budget, and based on that budget it is logical to assume that commitments have been made (contracts let, etc.). They have the legal authoritity to take these actions, and what would be the implications if a "pro-owner" BOD attempted to reverse those decisions. For instance if the new BOD decided to reverse the decision to have a seperate mgt team for the Ocean Club. There would obviously be severance costs associated with doing that, maybe even an employment contract involved, and possibly the MCVI mgt contract.
> 
> And the costs associated with special election would add more unbudgeted expenses to the resort.



As one example from 2000/2001 our resort fought a relatively short (by legal standards) fight with our original developer over issues that practically mirror what is being talked about here. The one difference is the Board was 100% (minus 2 Developer seats) behind the action rather than being in favor of the developer viewpoint.  Thus the word got out to owners by official channels in addition to boards such as this, the resort website and other timeshare sources. Even with all that working in the owners favor the end result was a negotiated settlement (based on the urging of a Federal Court which was hearing the two sides) that pleased neither side but kept the resort on track to improve and accomplished a management change. It all lasted about 12 months (as I say, no time at all in normal legal processes) and ended up costing the OWNERS over $225,000.  We ended up with only 2 actual court dates. Had there been more or the resolution been hammered out through the court who knows how much it would have cost or how long it would have taken. As it is I can think of many other places we could have spent $225,000 despite the positive result it did buy us.  

I shudder to think what it would cost to battle both your Board (which, like it or not, was elected by the rules) and the developer - who would pick up that tab? The Board/resort isn't going to pay for it if they aren't in agreement to undertake such action and, as we discovered, asking for court / Association costs as part of the settlement isn't likely to happen as each side wants it and neither has a better claim than the other (both feel they are right and to some degree they probably are).  It is estimated our developer spent close to 3/4 million fighting us  - again in a relatively short fight. What if they managed to get a court to order the Association to pay that? The risks are tremendous, the outcome uncertain and what a Court will actually entertain as evidence far more limited than anyone can imagine until they actually experience such a fight.  "Great" proof can evaporate when a Judge says "I don't care about that" or "that is past history" as they are very prone to do. Judges know little about timeshare, aren't going to listen to drawn out details and basically look at extremely narrow legal questions or facts of law. It doesn't work in the owners favor at all as they signed on to those hundreds of pages of rules/agreements willingly. 

In the end it is all likely to come down to an agreed settlement. That can be done without the court costs provided both sides are reasonable. Going back 10 years and looking for 100% (or even 70-90%) recovery isn't reasonable by any means (and no court is likely to find it is).  So, again, I hope the dissident owners come up with an approach that will get their concerns heard (seems that they are) and a reasonable agreement struck. To the degree that they are following the prescribed rules and procedures they are helping themselves and the other owners that support them. Once they step over a carefully planned approach following those rules and time lines into threatened lawsuits and more personal type attacks on the Board members (who DO get to have the Association billed to protect themselves at owners expense) the sides harden and costs sky rocket.  I feel strongly the results no matter how it goes won't be anything close to the OP demands, and of course they won't be happy about that. But reality says you go for what you can reasonably obtain and move on. If that answer isn't good enough then sell. Turning the Board actions around is the least likely outcome of all this and it sure isn't helping the resorts reputation while its being fought.  Pick a path, follow it and move on. 

As one final example from real life experience since that original fight the two sides at our resort have twice nearly come to a second round of legal war. Both times the two sides ended up meeting face to face and coming to a negotiated agreement that avoided all legal fees except those required to review and codify those terms. At each sit down both sides noted they wanted to avoid the costs and uncertainties of litigation and thus where more open to working out an acceptable answer. Both times that's exactly how it ended up going as both understood the pitfalls and expense any lawsuit brings. Both sides learned an expensive lesson in 2001 we have no desire to repeat. 

I do hope this thread stays alive both for the information it provides to the owners at the resort and so other Associations can learn what to avoid. It is an interesting thread to say the very least.


----------



## Sunbum

I am trying to find the budget forcast for 2009 and the details of the upcomming renovations. Does anyone know where i can find them?


----------



## tank56

*Hello ALL*

I have been reading a lot of people's responses here and I'm starting wonder who to believe and why this is all happening. We are owners at both resorts OC, SC and I can't believe the fees are rising every year. Before we know it, the fees will cost just as much as if we were non-owners booking our trips. I know I'm a little off topic here as we are talking about assessments, but why are the fees rising closing in on the cost of actual rentals? Where are all the rental incomes going to??????

Anyways, please keep me in the loop on what's going on and I hope we can get to the bottom of this maint. hikes...


----------



## tlwmkw

*Dave M. and timeos2*

You are both giving excellent advice.  I hope this situation can be worked out but it just sounds like it is getting worse.

Marksue-  on another note the building is 10 years old and the you state this roof issue has been ongoing since the building opened.  Why are the owners and board only getting upset about this defective roof now?  Why wasn't it addressed when the problem began soon after opening the resort?  The statute on this may have already passed since it is 10 years since the building was completed.  Who actually built the resort (I know Marriott developed it but they are not the actual builder)?  These are all questions that an impartial person would want to know in reviewing both sides arguments.  Remember also that you are dealing with Aruba which has different laws and where the government may have some interest in keeping Marriott happy since they employ many Arubans and have large economic interests in Aruba.  I do hope you get a result which pleases the owners but you must see that this is going to be a very difficult and expensive fight.  Ultimately the only ones who will end up 100% happy with any result will be the lawyers when they cash the large checks that you will have to pay them.


----------



## Dave M

tank56 said:


> I know I'm a little off topic here as we are talking about assessments, but why are the fees rising closing in on the cost of actual rentals? Where are all the rental incomes going to??????


Yes, it is a bit off topic and this thread should continue to be focused on the issues that Mark has raised.

However, the answer to your first question is spelled out completely in this thread. That's much of what this discussion is about - how much the fees have increased, why they have and whether it's appropriate. 

The answer to your second question is that rental income goes to the owner of the week that's being rented. If you rent a week you own, you get the rent. If Marriott owns a week and rents it, Marriott gets the rent. If an owner trades the use of a week to Marriott for Marriott Rewards points and Marriott rents it, Marriott gets the rent. All of that is as it should be. Only if the HOA forecloses on a timeshare and rents that week would the HOA be entitled to the rent.

Please start a new thread if you want to discuss this further, or click on my user name (to the left of this post) and send me a private message or an e-mail message and I'll move these two posts to a new thread so that you can continue the discussion.


----------



## vincenzi

*I Agree With Lovearuba*



lovearuba said:


> Hi
> "The intent of this thread was to notify and keep the ocean club owners informed of the situation.   Marksue has taken a lot of heat for getting the information posted.  Many of us are not lawyers and are looking to be treated right.  What has happened with the fees for the ocean club and the abrupt removal of our president because he was stepping up to the challenge and openly disputing what was happening is unfair and needs to be addressed. "
> 
> Marksue, thank you for starting this thread on TUG.  It has been a valuable source of information.  Also, thank you for not "throwing in the towel".  I am sure you have felt like it.
> 
> Dave, thank you for your knowledgeable input.
> 
> All of the owners at the AOC have been notified the amount of money the maintenance fees are going to be for next year.  I am sure many don't have any idea for the increase.  However, owners who view this website have some idea what is taking place.


----------



## gmarine

marksue said:


> Another valuable post. Eric, you have yet to provide value.  At least those who don't agree with this effort ask intelligent questions.  WHy do you even post here.  You are not an owner or anyone who is asking quality questions.



I agree with Dave M. The post has merit and you definitely should start taking some advice Dave M has given. I also agree with Eric that some of the suggestions border on ridiculous. Dont disregard advice just because someone isnt an owner at SC or OC. Much of the adice you have been given is from people who have been involved in timeshares for a long time, regardless of the resort.

I dont agree with the increases but getting even 10% of owners to vote is an enormous task, nevermind getting 50%. You've got a tough road ahead. Good luck.


----------



## ecwinch

tlwmkw said:


> Marksue-  on another note the building is 10 years old and the you state this roof issue has been ongoing since the building opened.  Why are the owners and board only getting upset about this defective roof now?




I wondered the same thing. It would seem that any warranty period (typically 2 years here in Texas) on the original construction has probably lapsed. 

And it would appear that MCVI is stepping in to "fill" the warranty on the roof, with the standard warranty on a roof being 20 years, and this one failing 10+ years in. And just like the warranty on the roof on your house, they are offering to pay a pro-rated amount of the replacement cost based on the number of years of usage. Roofing companies do not replace your roof free of charge if the roof fails after 10 years.


----------



## Dave M

All of that's true. Because of that, the only reason that Marriott would likely be held accountable by a court is if it can be proven that Marriott knew the roof was defective when they took over and completed the build-out. After all, even though the roof leaked, the HOA did get the use of that roof for those years. 

Although the Board made the "defective" allegation back in January, there is no evidence I have seen that proves Marriott knew the roof was defective way back then. The fact that it leaked during early occupancies doesn't prove that Marriott knew the roof was defective before or at the time they completed the building. 

I'm guessing that the problem of proving what Marriott did or didn't know is one major reason why the Board decided to accept a compromise settlement with Marriott.


----------



## Luckybee

Dave M said:


> , there is no evidence I have seen



I hate being cryptic but that said for the time being I along with others will have to be. Do not make the mistake and assume that Mark or anyone else has disclosed on these boards all the info that they are aware of. Dont make the assumption that legal opinions haven't already been obtained, and dont assume that steps have not already been taken on behalf of the owners. Mark has been using the boards to try and make everyone aware of the problems and to sign up owners. He has not very wisely been disclosing more than he has needed to, although Im sure at times he has had to bite his tongue ...actually I'd guess that has been alot 

For a myriad of reasons this is not the time or place for a number of things to come out.


----------



## Dave M

Point taken. 

However, you shouldn't make the same mistakes by assuming what’s in your post is fact. As an example, from my discussions with Mark behind the scenes and from some of his statements here on this forum, it's clear that he has not obtained any formal legal opinions, at least not from an attorney who has reviewed the governing documents and who is knowledgeable about HOA legal matters.

I have suggested several times - in posts here and in discussions with Mark behind the scenes - that legal counsel knowledgeable about HOA law be retained. Unfortunately, that costs money - lots of money. That's not something a single person should undertake because the cost would far exceed the potential financial benefit to the owner who funds that expense.


----------



## marksue

I will answer this I have been speaking to legal and other in the know people and I have held quite a bit back.  More will be revealed when I am authorized to make statements.  

There are a couple of attorneys who are owners working with me on this.  So all those that think I am functioning without guidance are incorrect.  I do have another meeting with the attorneys this Tuesday.  If there is information I can post after that meeting I will.  My intent is to share all I can without impacting our plan.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*What The Lawyers Generally Say.  (Maybe Not In This Case, But Generally.)*




marksue said:


> I do have another meeting with the attorneys this Tuesday.


You have an _excellent_ case. 

Now, how much justice can you afford ? 

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


----------



## qlaval

To whom it may interest.

To Amend the articles of the Association at the OC (as per Article 30)

30.1 
_These articles of Association can only be amended by notarial deed.
The board shall have the authorization to have such deed drawn up, by resolution adopted by an absolute majority of votes cast by the Members in a General Meeting of Members in which at least two-third (2/3) of the total number of Shares is represented._

_In the event the number of issued shares required is not represented in this meeting, the meeting shall be be postponed for at least 15 days, but no longer then 60 days. In the second meeting, amendments of the Articles of Association can be adopted by absolute majority of the votes cast, irrespective of the number of shares represented._


Looks like 66.67% is required...


----------



## qlaval

Again...

Article 16.3
_At the written request of at least one-fifth (1/5) of the Members the Board is obligated to call a General Meeting, to be held no later than 14 days after notice of the meeting has been given. If this request has not been complied with within 14 days, they may proceed to calling this meeting themselves with due observance of the rules laid down in the Bylaws concerning giving notice of meetings._


Looks like 20% is required...

These articles are from the "Articles of Association".

Priorities in case of conflict. Highest to Lowest
-_Articles of Association
-Bylaws
-Rules and Regulations
-Procedures for Reserving Usage_


----------



## Zac495

marksue said:


> I will answer this I have been speaking to legal and other in the know people and I have held quite a bit back.  More will be revealed when I am authorized to make statements.
> 
> There are a couple of attorneys who are owners working with me on this.  So all those that think I am functioning without guidance are incorrect.  I do have another meeting with the attorneys this Tuesday.  If there is information I can post after that meeting I will.  My intent is to share all I can without impacting our plan.



Thank you for taking YOUR time to try to help no matter what the outcome.


----------



## ecwinch

qlaval said:


> To whom it may interest.
> 
> To Amend the articles of the Association at the OC (as per Article 30)
> 
> 30.1
> _These articles of Association can only be amended by notarial deed.
> The board shall have the authorization to have such deed drawn up, by resolution adopted by an absolute majority of votes cast by the Members in a General Meeting of Members in which at least two-third (2/3) of the total number of Shares is represented._
> 
> _In the event the number of issued shares required is not represented in this meeting, the meeting shall be be postponed for at least 15 days, but no longer then 60 days. In the second meeting, amendments of the Articles of Association can be adopted by absolute majority of the votes cast, irrespective of the number of shares represented._
> 
> 
> Looks like 66.67% is required...



Is it not 66.67% for a quorum, and then just a majority of those shares present at that meeting. 

And if quorum is not achieved, the meeting is postposted for up to 60 days. In the second meeting only a majority of the shares present is required.

Would appear that it is structured to provide provisions to change the Articles even with a large segment of non-participating owners. As you normally see in an HOA.


----------



## timeos2

*An uphill battle*



qlaval said:


> To whom it may interest.
> 
> To Amend the articles of the Association at the OC (as per Article 30)
> 
> 30.1
> _These articles of Association can only be amended by notarial deed.
> The board shall have the authorization to have such deed drawn up, by resolution adopted by an absolute majority of votes cast by the Members in a General Meeting of Members in which at least two-third (2/3) of the total number of Shares is represented._
> 
> _In the event the number of issued shares required is not represented in this meeting, the meeting shall be be postponed for at least 15 days, but no longer then 60 days. In the second meeting, amendments of the Articles of Association can be adopted by absolute majority of the votes cast, irrespective of the number of shares represented._
> 
> 
> Looks like 66.67% is required...



That fits with most documents for timeshare resorts. It does appear to have an "out" in the second paragraph after 15-60 days when 51% majority of any  amount of votes can institute a change.  That is different than most. 



qlaval said:


> Again...
> 
> Article 16.3
> _At the written request of at least one-fifth (1/5) of the Members the Board is obligated to call a General Meeting, to be held no later than 14 days after notice of the meeting has been given. If this request has not been complied with within 14 days, they may proceed to calling this meeting themselves with due observance of the rules laid down in the Bylaws concerning giving notice of meetings._
> 
> 
> Looks like 20% is required...
> 
> These articles are from the "Articles of Association".
> 
> Priorities in case of conflict. Highest to Lowest
> -_Articles of Association
> -Bylaws
> -Rules and Regulations
> -Procedures for Reserving Usage_



This is more absolute. 20% of ALL owners would have to request the special meeting. That could be a very tough number to meet without an owners list to do a mailing.


----------



## Dave M

timeos2 said:


> This is more absolute. 20% of ALL owners would have to request the special meeting.


Not quite, John. As previously  linked, it takes only 10% to call a Special Meeting for the purpose of attempting to recall one or more directors. However, you are on the right track. Because the language of the Special Meeting provision covers only director recalls, the Board would almost certainly refuse to discuss any other topic at such meeting. Then, unless the Board called a General Meeting, it would require the 20%, as discussed in these last few posts, to call a General Meeting at which the other topics in this thread could be discussed and acted upon.


----------



## timeos2

*Needs to be complete to work*



Dave M said:


> Not quite, John. As previously  linked, it takes only 10% to call a Special Meeting for the purpose of attempting to recall one or more directors. However, you are on the right track. Because the language of the Special Meeting provision covers only director recalls, the Board would almost certainly refuse to discuss any other topic at such meeting. Then, unless the Board called a General Meeting, it would require the 20%, as discussed in these last few posts, to call a General Meeting at which the other topics in this thread could be discussed and acted upon.



Ah, yes. That is right Dave. Thank you for the correction. It shows how detailed and confusing these things are and how one wrong assumption or incomplete reading of the rules can throw the whole process of track or end it. It appears that the owners looking to raise their legitimate issues aren't getting the absolutely required paid legal support they will need to actually accomplish anything.  As you pointed out that is extremely costly and unless shared by a good number of owners unlikely to be worth it for any individual or even small group of individuals to fund.  Without it there is almost bound to be mistakes made that will derail any attempt successful challenge. And that doesn't mean actually suing but simply presenting a proper case as required to the Board toeven consider the things they are asking for. If it actually reaches a lawsuit the costs are staggering. 

They need to rally a large group of owners, willing to pay upfront money to fund a proper legal challenge (if that is really a threat that will mean anything) if they want to make this work.  Scatter shot claims, threats and picking selected language that fits the complaint while ignoring other requirements will simply be sloughed off by management and the Board. Do it right or don't do it. Hollow threats not backed up with the funds needed to implement them will just be an irritant and accomplish little or nothing I'm afraid.


----------



## qlaval

ecwinch said:


> Is it not 66.67% for a quorum, and then just a majority of those shares present at that meeting.
> 
> And if quorum is not achieved, the meeting is postposted for up to 60 days. In the second meeting only a majority of the shares present is required.
> 
> Would appear that it is structured to provide provisions to change the Articles even with a large segment of non-participating owners. As you normally see in an HOA.



You're right and I stand corrected.


----------



## DBerg

*Outraged*

This morning I checked my email and as an Aruba Ocean Club owner I am outraged at this owner Mark Silverstein who also claims to be an owner and who used my address illegally and without permission to send the following message:

_If this is a duplicate please accept my apologizes.

PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO ALL. JUST RESPOND TO ME.

I got your email from Allan Cohen. As an owner at the Ocean Club, like you, I am quite upset about what has taken place. I was at the owners meeting in October and was very disappointed to hear our board be Marriott puppets. By now we have all gotten our bills for the fees and assessments. We need people on the board who will force Marriott to step up and be responsible for the sub par building they sold us. A 1 bedroom at the Ocean Club is not more costly than a 2 bedroom in the Surf Club.

There is a lot of information posted on the Time share users group website:http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82564

We are in the process of gaining enough units to call a special meeting of the board to change some of the bylaws so that they are more owner friendly and drive more transparency and if necessary recall some of the members of the board. We would of course look to keep Allan on the board.

Please send me the number of units you have so I can add you to the list. Also please pass this on to any other owners whom you know. It is important that we as many owners possible on board.

Mark Silverstein_

This is an outrage. I once sent an email to Allan Cohen and now to see that he gave my personal information out to another owner is totally irresponsible. After reading the email and then being led to this site I had to spend nearly an entire day to understand how to send this message to other owners. I have been an owner for many years and am retired; I do not know Allan Cohen or Mark Silverstein (apparently marksue after reading these messages on this internet website) and I believe they should formally apologize to all owners for breaking a trust of privacy. I have now sent both of them emails and am waiting on thier answer before I take further action against these two individuals. I and my wife am so angry about this invasion of privacy I have tried sending emails to Marriott to find out how to make them stop as it is apparent they have their own personal agendas. I want them removed from our ownership group immediately and I will seek how to have other owners expelled. I have enjoyed my timeshare for many years and mind my own business - I DO NOT APPRECIATE ANYONE INVADING MY PRIVACY RIGHTS AS A US CITIZEN. What they are trying to do with my money and my resort is an outrage - Marriott must do something immediately to make these two people stop using mine and other owners personal information!!


----------



## dioxide45

D.Berg, You received what I would amount to spam. It was unsolicited but it doesn't appear that they are using you as an owner to add to the list unless you respond.


----------



## marksue

It is quite funny that you said you sent an email to Allan Cohen, but do not know Allan Cohen.  Why would you send an email to someone you do not know. As an owner you had to know he was the president of the board, why else would you send him an email.  I got an email from this person and his email address is not an email address that i know or i have ever sent an email.  I have a list of anyone I send emails, and his email address was a bogus email.


----------



## bergdavid

[_Message deleted. Please read the "Posting Rules" for this BBS, especially the "Be Courteous" section. before posting again. (See "PostingRules" on the above blue bar.) 

You can post your personal opinions about the matters associated with the topic of this thread, but you may not attack another poster. Doing so again will likely get you banned from posting here. Also note that there could well be more than one "David Berg"._ Dave M, BBS Moderator]


----------



## Dave M

marksue said:


> It is quite funny that you said you sent an email to Allan Cohen, but do not know Allan Cohen.  Why would you send an email to someone you do not know.


I don't know about you, but I have sent a significant number of e-mail messages with questions and/or requests to timeshare board members, general managers, rooms control people and others that I have never met. Certainly in the timeshare world, that's not at all unusual. I also send messages to my Marriott Vacation Ownership Advisor, but I have never met her. 

Why does that seem "quite funny"?


----------



## Luckybee

Dave M said:


> I don't know about you, but I have sent a significant number of e-mail messages with questions and/or requests to timeshare board members, general managers, rooms control people and others that I have never met. Certainly in the timeshare world, that's not at all unusual. I also send messages to my Marriott Vacation Ownership Advisor, but I have never met her.
> 
> Why does that seem "quite funny"?




I think the distiction is in the word "know"...you're both right...the difference is in how you interpreted d Bergs comment( at least on an objective reading . I think what D Berg was trying to say is that he didnt "personally" know Allen Cohen which is what you got out of it Dave, whereas it could also have been interpreted that he didnt know who he was, which is what I think Mark took from it, which would have made it rather strange. (feel free to correct me if Im wrong )...I love interpreting internet speak...lol

On a different note though Im more curious about this post if Mark did not in fact send this individual an email. I do know this is not the same one I received from him. Perhaps he did but if so why would anyone be "outraged" at getting an email that only "invites" them to send their info ? If you didnt agree wouldnt you simply ignore it? 99.9999% of the population email addresses matched by name are available somewhere on the internet ...Email addresses are not exactly a closely guarded secret. How many times a day does everyone get spam inviting one to purchase this or join that, at least everyone with an email address, do you get outraged each time?....hmmmm


----------



## qlaval

I for one think that the way Marriott pushed aside of our elected President is more outrageous then receiving that email...


----------



## ecwinch

*MarkSue*

Luckybee - like you I am curious and would like MarkSue to respond to the claims that DBerg raises:

- That you have been provided e-mail addresses of owners by Allan Cohen?

- That you have contacted those owners by e-mail to support your initiatives?

- That you are the author of the e-mail in question aka Mark Silverstein?

And I am sorry ... your response did not make sense to me...

Timeos2 - Have to agree with comments. The first smell test this action will have to endure is if a law firm is willing to take this on a contigency basis. If they are only willing to take it on a time and materials basis, then one has to wonder about the relative merits of the case, and who would fund it.


----------



## marksue

I am not going to respond to a phoney email address.  I know Dave Berg and he is part of the group working to make changes.  Dave has been working behind the scenes writing and speaking to Marriott to no avail.  

I do not know if this person is really named Dave Berg or not, as I am sure there is more than 1, there was never any email sent to him by me.  I received 20 emails from him last night all with the same message all doing exactly what he is complaining I did,  he is ccing: hundreds of owners.


----------



## lovearuba

*marksue*

Is he the same character that sent an email complaining that he didnt see a change in his maintenance fee.  This character did a reply to all which means he did exactly what he is accussing you of.  The one I'm referring to indicated he was a doctor?? but I had no idea what some of the message actually meant, he used a word I wasnt familar with and since he didnt seem to know what he was talking about I didn't bother looking it up but I did respond to him and sent him a copy of the recent Marriott owner letter posted to the owner website.  This way if he read it he would understand the extent of increase in his bill.


----------



## marksue

I do not think it is him. I actually wrote back to him and we had a couple of good exchanges. He may not agree to our goal but that is ok

 I have an idea where this Dberg one is coming from.  I do not think it is an owner, but I could be wrong.  David Berg who has worked with us has the same email address as this one except for the live.com.  THe David Berg we know has been corresponding back and forth with the board, MVCI and Marriott. 

I think someone pro marriott, may have gotten a hold of his email address, created a similiar address and sent an email out to discredit the effort.   They are certainly entitled to it, but why would he not respond to the email I sent him last night asking how he got my email address since i never sent him an email.


----------



## Dave M

lovearuba said:


> This character did a reply to all ....


If he did a "reply to all" and multiple people involved in this effort received responses, there should be no reason this should have happened at all. If an original e-mail message is crafted properly, a "reply to all" will go back only to the sender. How is that possible? Read on....

When someone sends an e-mail message to a large group of people, some of whom don't know each other, it's the sender's responsibility to protect those e-mail addresses from being seen by any of the recipients, unless all recipients already have the addresses of all others or have all agreed to release the privacy of their addresses. It's easy to do. The sender should simply put all of the addresses in the "bcc" address box, not in the "To" address box. By doing that, no recipient can see anyone else's address and (possibly) misuse it.

That's why, when you receive an e-mail from Marriott (or any other responsible business) that has obviously been sent simultaneously to thousands of others, you can't see any of the other recipient email addresses. Nor can you send a response to anyone else who received that same message.

Whether “DBerg” received an email directly from Mark or whether it was forwarded to him by someone else who received it doesn’t matter. In either case, he never should have had a chance to respond to anyone else except Mark and the person who sent it to him.


----------



## lovearuba

*Thanks Dave*

Thats great info, I never thought to do that but I certainly will keep it in mind if I ever need to send correspondence to a large group of folks.


----------



## ecwinch

*MarkSue*

Are you going to respond to the allegations raised, ie?

- That Allan Cohen provided you with e-mail addresses of Marriott owners that had contacted him in his offical capicity as BOD member/president of the Ocean Club...

I for one, I think that is fairly serious allegation, and if it is false, you should probably put it rest early.


----------



## marksue

As I said in my previous post I am not responding to a post by someone accusing me of having sent him an email who I never sent an email.   

This is the last I will address that topic.  My issue and the issue witht he hundreds of owners I ahve been speaking is the lack of transparency from the board.  We just got a letter from the board that is onece again Marriott dictating what should be said.  The information from that letter will be posted sometime today, with a response to the board.


----------



## Resp

Well, I received the letter and in a seperate mailing envelope a bill.  I called the marriott telephone number to speak about the bill and the assessment in comparision to last years fees.  The person had to "go find"  the 2009 information on the AOC "upgrades" and communicated to me the need for refurbishment inorder to keep it "nice" down there.:whoopie:   She told me about the 3 resorts in FLA that were not up to code and the large fees that the owners had to produce in order to get it up to fire code-lack of sprinkers.  She commented they are going to do a nice job with the upgrades with new counter tops, flat screen TV's, beds and etc ......I commented that don't you think it is not wise to do those unnessary things during this economic downturn.  She said that it would make our units nicer and there is no problem selling them.  REALLY, I must have just fallin off the turnip truck.   WOW the brass of them.  anybody wanna buy my week.  she said I should email the Corey(how much does he cost?) and the board at aocbod@blahblah.com  I have a better idea, anybody have shoes to throw!!!!!!  this is defintely not right, these fees are way out of line, for aruba timeshare.  What recourse do you have? I also have a bridge for sale if your interested.


----------



## Resp

Ok you experts, has there ever been a marriott resort to reduce its annual maintainence fee, and which resort was it?


----------



## Luckybee

Dave M said:


> If he did a "reply to all" and multiple people involved in this effort received responses, there should be no reason this should have happened at all. If an original e-mail message is crafted properly, a "reply to all" will go back only to the sender. How is that possible? Read on....
> 
> When someone sends an e-mail message to a large group of people, some of whom don't know each other, it's the sender's responsibility to protect those e-mail addresses from being seen by any of the recipients, unless all recipients already have the addresses of all others or have all agreed to release the privacy of their addresses. It's easy to do. The sender should simply put all of the addresses in the "bcc" address box, not in the "To" address box. By doing that, no recipient can see anyone else's address and (possibly) misuse it.
> 
> That's why, when you receive an e-mail from Marriott (or any other responsible business) that has obviously been sent simultaneously to thousands of others, you can't see any of the other recipient email addresses. Nor can you send a response to anyone else who received that same message.
> 
> Whether “DBerg” received an email directly from Mark or whether it was forwarded to him by someone else who received it doesn’t matter. In either case, he never should have had a chance to respond to anyone else except Mark and the person who sent it to him.




I dont want to take this too far off topic but great tips Dave.  I gotta tell you though, I have received mail from many repsonsible biz who have done this before. Got one last week from a large bank that had over 30 email addresses on it. I think it happens alot because most(myself included ) didnt know to do what you described...I will be more careful in the future with my emails


----------



## FlyerBobcat

*reduced maintenance fees????*

You can see that this has indeed happened in rare cases by checking under the Marriott section of the "Advice" section ("advice" is located in the red bar across the top of the page).  Also listing the direct link here




Resp said:


> Ok you experts, has there ever been a marriott resort to reduce its annual maintainence fee, and which resort was it?


----------



## Dave M

True, and at one resort (Custom House), the fees went down twice in succession - from 2002 to 2003 and from 2003 to 2004.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> As I said in my previous post I am not responding to a post by someone accusing me of having sent him an email who I never sent an email.
> 
> This is the last I will address that topic.  My issue and the issue witht he hundreds of owners I ahve been speaking is the lack of transparency from the board.  We just got a letter from the board that is onece again Marriott dictating what should be said.  The information from that letter will be posted sometime today, with a response to the board.



Kudos for your clever rationale for dodging the direct question. Clearly if Allan has provided you with the e-mail addresses as alleged, then his removal as President was justified, and he probably should be removed from the board also. It clearly would be a serious breach of conduct for him to release the e-mail addresses of owners that contacted him in his official capacity on the board.


----------



## marksue

*FAQ's from the board*

just read the FAQ's you sent you.  I have to tell you I am quite disappointed in what I would consider half truths and lack of answers to the questions we have been asking.

1) You do not address completely why Allan was forced out prior to the owners meeting yet left him there to lead the meeting.  While the board is the same the attitude of the board is not.  Having Allan as president there was a great deal of transparency and he was wore than willing to speak with owners.  Frank, you refuse to speak with owners.  Why did you take on the president role if you did not want to deal with owners and represent the owners. We do not need Corey answering emails we need our board to answer the hard questions without going to Marriott for answers.

2) You have yet to explain how in January you the board said the building was defective, yet now you say it was not defective.  The lack of openness and truth about the building is impacting your ability to have the support of the owners.  Can you explain why we have had leaks in the building since the doors opened? Can you explain why the windows have leaked since inception?

When did Marriott's % rise to 48%, when as of a couple of weeks ago I was told by David Babich it was 43% or was the 48% a misprint. Congrats if you got them to pay 5% more, but they still owe us another 52%.

3) How can you say the board represents the owners when we hear nothing from the board when we send emails. All we hear is from Corey, who has to go to Marriott for answers.  Decisions are being made which are not necessarily in the best interests given the state of the economy.

Why are you spending 5 million more, as I heard from David Babich, then Marriott suggested for the renovation.

You say you want to build a positive relationship with Marriott.  What about doing what is best for the owners.  I believe Marriott corporate is a good organization, but MVCI is not looking out for owners.  Seems to me wanting to build a positive relationship means giving in to what they want, therefore not holding them responsible.  If Allan fighting for the owners was not a positive relationship, good for him, at least we felt we had someone fighting for us.  Why has MVCI purposely kept MI out of this issue.  

4) Tell us why Marriott has not paid there fair share for space utilized in the Ocean club.  Why has Marriott not reimbursed us for the damage caused by the leaks due to a defective roof and waterproofing.  The damage by the storm was due to poor waterproofing of the building why isn't Marriott reimbursing us for that.  

If Marriott paid us our rightful dues, then we wouldn't have the large increase or special assessments you are now piling on to us owners..

Why not leave it up to the owners to decide if they want to have the renovation now or delay it due to economic conditions.  Oh i forgot you don't care about the owners.  If doing the work now would save 750k, why has the assessment not gone down.  Seems like there is double dipping somewhere.


This whole issue could be put to rest if we could get MI to talk with the owners.  Also if this board really wants to increase transparency then make board meetings open to all owners if they are in Aruba or not.  Want transparency, talk to us not using Marriott and their puppets to speak for you.  There is no confidence in this board.  In fact I believe it is a 3 person board, Steve, Frank and Melissa. Why do I say that?  When i received this email today I called Allan and asked him about it and he had no idea what I was talking about.  I asked if he read my email to the board and he told me he did not have access to the  board email account.  Why is that Frank?  What are you afraid of, that he may tell us the truth.

I believe this board needs to look inside and if they can not represent the owners as they are supposed to, then please resign and let us put it board members that will fight for the owners.  This FAQ has not addressed the owners questions.  We want real answers not MVCI answers.


----------



## Resp

*maintain fees*

Thank you for the link, the key word you said is "Rare" and as you can see the operating expenses sometimes decreased but the overall expense to the so called "owner" actually increased, in some instances.  In certain areas the reserves may be larger than others.  I would logically think that ski locations take a beating from equipment related damage lugged thru resorts etc, as well as storm related concerns with island issues.  But i don't see the overall effect on a financial depression that affects overall sales, i guess that is not logical and asking owners to cough up a greater than 30% increase and potentially maintain that level of operating expense is transparent! As property managers this makes no sense other than greed!!

I do believe the vast "owners" do not know of the current state to which they are being asked to obligatory contribute.  I guess the vast "owners" have *not* lost their jobs or houses, health insurance, and other means to maintaining finiancial life.  As property managers and BOD see it, I must be an idiot to think that TV's, furniture, lobby, carpeting, bathrooms, the cost of additional mangement staff, is appriopriate!!!!!  I have enjoyed the AOC and other properties since 99 when I joined the marrtiott family.  I feel very fortunate for the priceless things that have been part of my life and value them very much, AOC has contributed to that!  But when the cost of "ownership" out strips rentals or resales, I can not find a convincing argument to comprehend.  Although I realize some may differ, and good for them.  I do at this point feel that the "owners" and the parent family has the BOD held hostage for money, I guess I will have to go back to the turnip patch, or be treated like an "owner mushroom" kept in the dark and fed ****!

I appreciate this thred and feel the comments appear warranted!  

TY


----------



## marksue

*Friday's board meeting*

I just got this email from an owner who was on the board meeting call.

It is quite interesting. Shows you how much the board does not care about the owners:

As concerned owners at the Marriott Ocean Club, I wanted to provide you
with information on what transpired at the Board meeting this past
Friday.  Based on that meeting, all owner concerns about this Board seem
well justified as they seem to have little interest in hearing from
Ocean Club owners regarding any of the issues and they are moving "full
steam " ahead despite the significant economic problems that many people
are facing and outstanding isues about possible Marriott liability for
some of the roof and other structural conditions at the Ocean Club.

I happened to attend the Board meeting merely by chance as it seemed to
be a well kept secret by the Board,  On Thursday, December 18 I was at
the front desk at the Ocean Club in Aruba when I noticed a small tent
card partially hidden at the end of the desk noting the Board meeting
for Tuesday, December 17 at 3PM. Upon inquiry of OceanClub management, I
learned that it was actually sceduled for 4PM on Friday, December 19 and
was later told it was really at 3PM. One would think that notice of a
Board meeting would be prominently and accurately displayed to owners.

The meeting was attended in person by a number of Ocean Club Marriott
staff including Corey Guest, the General Manager of AOC, some of his
staff including the CFO, the General Manager of the Marriott Resort on
Aruba (Ocean Club, Surf Club and hotel) and by telephone a number of
MVCI representatives and the AOC Board.  All of the Board members phoned
in to the meeting which was chaired by Frank Knox, the newly installed
President, who finally surfaced although apparently does not like to
respond to owner Emails.

Most of the Board meeting discussion focused on the planned
refurbishments and renovations with Board member, Steve Richards
discussing how he had been able to cut some of the proposed renovations,
saving around a million dollars, before he added some back in to the
mix.  It was noted that a potential problem with having assessments paid
in two years rather than all at once was that there would not be
sufficient money to pay for it all and costs could increase.
Apparently, Marriott will be helping in bridging this concern but the
discussion was not totally clear on the specifics.  Projected
expenditures for renovations for 2009 are 13 million and for 2010 1.2 to
1.3 million. 

Allan Cohen, former President of the AOC owner's Association, spoke of
the need for some renovations but noted that considering the sizable
increase in maintenance and reserve fees as well as the continuing
significant economic problems that most are feeling, the Board should
poll the owners on whether they support all of these
renovations/assessments at the present time.  Allan made a motion to
this effect and since no one else spoke up, I asked to be heard. Knox,
referring to me as Mr. Berg, initially sought to disallow my comments,
but when I reminded him of my right as an owner which was confirmed by
Corey Guest's reading of the owner documents, he relented telling me I
had "2 minutes".  Reminding Knox that I was Mr. Berkowitz and not Mr.
Berg(he seemed to have a "Mr. Berg" on his mind,) I reiterated Allan's
concerns and also noted that both Marriott and this Board had
credibility problems with owners as a result of their handling of the
roof and other structural issues and the lack of Board responses to
owner Emails and concerns.  I further noted that the significant
increases in maintenance and reserve fees together with the planned
assessments could adversely effect many owners considering the
troublesome economic conditions worldwide and, therefore, it was very
important that on this issue the Board be transparent and submit this
matter to the owners for a vote.  Led by Frank Knox, the Board voted
against this motion, with no one even offering a second. No one spoke up
or expressed any concern for the owners other than Allan and myself.

Another issue raised by Board member, Melissa Pericolosi, was to have
non owners e.g. renters or those who "trade in" pay a utility surcharge.
Utility costs were projected to rise significantly under the recently
approved budget for Aruba.  Marriott spoke against this motion arguing
that it would violate its agreement with Interval International.  Allan
Cohen asked that Board legal counsel review whether there were any
issues to prevent such a surcharge and again led by Knox, there was no
support for such a referral to legal counsel. Even Pericolosi, who first
raised it had no interest in pursuing a further legal evaluation.

Prior to adjourning the meeting, Board member Richards said that in the
interest of fair balance (I guess to my earlier comments of concern), he
needed to note that he had heard from owners about the need for
renovations.  After the meeting Corey Guest mentioned to me that he
passes on to Richard any owner comments on conditions of the villas on a
regular basis and that was what he was referring to in his comments.

Happy to address any questions and I have no problem with these comments
being shared with any concerned owners.  Regards, Ken


----------



## qlaval

Here the latest BDO communication:

_*Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club
Frequently Asked Questions*

In recent weeks, there have been a number of questions posed to the Board of Directors by Owners. Below, you’ll find answers to the most frequently asked questions.

*Question:* Is Allan Cohen, the previous President of the Association, still serving on the Association Board?

*Answer:* Allan Cohen continues to serve on the Association Board. Owners elect the Board of Directors, and each person serves a three-year term for a maximum of two terms. The Board elects its officers at the annual meeting each year. Mr. Cohen is in the final year of his second term.

During the January 2008 Board of Directors Meeting, the Board developed a succession plan to ensure a seamless transition from Mr. Cohen’s long and distinguished service to a new administration. The plan called for a new president to be elected in 2008 so that Mr. Cohen would have the opportunity in his last few months on the Board to mentor the new President. Mr. Frank Knox, Senior Vice President of BB&T Bank in Charlotte, N.C., was elected by the Board at its annual meeting to succeed Mr. Cohen per the agreed-upon succession plan.

*Question:* Why are roof and other repairs needed at Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club? Was the building defective?

*Answer:* The building and the roof are not structurally defective. A partially completed building was acquired by Marriott in 1995, reconfigured as a Marriott Vacation Club® property and subsequently opened as Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club in 1999. The original roof is now 14 years old and needs repairs beyond normal maintenance because of the extreme Aruban sun and wind.

Rather than simply repair the existing roof, the Board decided to replace the entire roof using state-of-the-art technology. The Board independently hired structural and environmental experts to ensure that the new roof was properly designed and installed and to confirm that there was no structural or other long-term damage. Our consultants have confirmed to the Board’s satisfaction that there is no structural damage and that the roof’s structure is sound.

Marriott Vacation Club is paying 48% of the cost to replace the roof, which is their share of the cost from the time they acquired the property. Original caulking around windows and doors has also deteriorated over time due to the Aruban sun and wind. As a result, the entire building will be resealed next year, a process that will include re-caulking all windows and doors and repainting the exterior with a waterproof paint and sealer. A Reserve Plan forecast estimated that the exterior building refurbishment was to be completed in 2010 but has been moved up, to late 2009 in order to maintain the integrity of the building’s waterproofing.

*Question:* Does the Board represent Owners or does it represent Marriott Vacation Club?

*Answer:* The current make up of the Board includes four multiple-week Owner members and one Marriott representative. The decisions the Board makes affects these multiple-week Owner

Board members the same as other Owners. The Board has and continues to perform its due diligence representing Owners.

Last year, the Board retained a corporate attorney to review all of the Aruba Ocean Club documents, including the management agreement with Marriott, and to advise the Board on its legal options to protect the interests of the Owners. The documents that govern the Association and its relationship with Marriott are legally binding.

As a result, the Board agreed that it is in the long-term best interests of the Owners and the Association to build a positive relationship with Marriott rather than continue the adversarial relationship that had developed over the past several years. During the past six months, Marriott has been working collaboratively with the Board to address a number of important issues and as a result, has made financial concessions approaching $2 million that otherwise would be the responsibility of the Owners. Having the Marriott name associated with the Aruba Ocean Club adds immeasurable value to our property and is what distinguishes Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club from other timeshares in Aruba selling for 1/3rd the value for comparable villas.

*Question:* Why are we getting such a big increase in annual maintenance fees, approved by the Board?

*Answer*: There are a number of specific reasons necessitating the increase in annual maintenance fees. The specifics have been detailed in a letter to Owners with the Annual Maintenance Fee invoices. Please see the abbreviated list of reasons below.


Because of its age, Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club is becoming more expensive to maintain. The new roof and resealing of the building next year will help to keep future increases to a minimum.

The costs of utilities, taxes and other fees in Aruba have dramatically increased during the past year and were not anticipated. Through our conservation initiatives, the Ocean Club reduced overall electricity consumption by 5% this past year, but the cost of electricity increased 42%.

The cost of labor on the island has increased more than 10%.

To provide better service to our Owners and more independence from Marriott’s Aruba Surf Club, the Board approved the addition of several new staff positions this past year, including the new General Manager and Finance Director, which has further increased labor costs.

The recent hurricane caused significant damage to the property and the cost of repairs is not covered by insurance.

We have increased the amount of funds retained in the Reserve Account that will pay for future capital improvements and repairs, in order to avoid the need for future assessments.

*Question: *What are our assurances that maintenance fees won’t continue to escalate each year?

*Answer:* The Board establishes an annual maintenance fee based on forecast expenses for the coming year. With the rising cost of labor and utilities along with several unplanned emergency expenses in 2008, the Board had no choice but to increase the maintenance fees for 2009 to cover
anticipated costs. 

The Board will go through the same process to set the maintenance fees for 2010. If in the coming months, utilities become less expensive and the cost of labor, shipping, taxes, etc. are less than expected, then the maintenance fee will be reduced. Hopefully, we will not see the extreme swings in expenses that we saw this past year and will be able to reduce next year’s maintenance fee below 2009 levels.

*Question:* Why is an assessment needed at this time, what will it accomplish and why are we paying for it?

*Answer:* The upcoming assessment has nothing to do with the cost of day-to-day operations or repair and maintenance of the property. The assessment will fund a complete renovation of the property. This is needed because the Ocean Club is approaching its 10-year anniversary, and with one of the highest occupancy rates of all the Marriott Vacation Club resorts, it is showing signs of age.

Unfortunately, over the past few years, the replacement costs for goods (i.e., furniture, televisions, appliances) has escalated from a 35% premium over domestic product cost to now over 69% premium. Our maintenance fee reserve contribution has not escalated as quickly as these costs have increased. The cost escalation along with the reduced useful life of some assets resulted in a shortfall of reserve funds needed to fully pay for the planned 10-year renovation cost.

If in prior years the Board had better anticipated the cost of the renovation we all would have been paying higher maintenance fees and there would not have been the need for an assessment.

The assessment, along with the current reserve fund, will completely cover the costs to renovate the Lobby, hallways and all villas and will pay to have the exterior of the building resealed, including new caulking on the inside and outside of all windows and doors. In addition to new furniture, all bathrooms in the villas will be updated with new shower enclosures and new double sink vanities with granite countertops. The kitchens will have all new appliances that are more durable than existing appliances, and all kitchen cabinets will be refaced with new wood fronts. Each villa will also include a desk, wireless Internet and new flat-screen, high-definition televisions.

*Question:* Why do we even need a renovation or at a minimum, why can’t it be put off for 2-3 years?

*Answer:* The Ocean Club is approaching its 10 year anniversary and it has one of the highest occupancy rates of all Marriott Vacation Clubs and as a result, is showing its age. Furniture is scratched and tattered and appliances are failing and being replaced on a piecemeal basis which is not cost effective. Owner feedback tells us that while our owners love coming to Aruba, the condition of the rooms detracts from their overall experience. The condition of the rooms and furniture continues to receive the lowest ratings in our owner satisfaction surveys and ratings continue to drop even lower. A sample of owner feedback from the first two weeks of December 2008 makes it clear that our resort is in desperate need of a top to bottom renovation. Here are a few excerpts from our Owners survey:


“My family and I were extremely disappointed in our room. The microwave did not work properly; the bathrooms were old and the shower stalls need to be replaced.”

“I thought everything outside my room was great, lots of activities for the kids, well maintained pool and beach area, friendly service at the pool bar, but the room experience was extremely disappointing.”

“This property is TIRED. The appliances need to be upgraded. The furnishings need to be upgraded. The linens need to be upgraded. The cookware needs to be upgraded. We're paying a lot of money to be in a less than ideal surrounding. Are we Marriott or Motel Six?”

“The Ocean Club is overdue for a makeover. It is starting to look shabby and we are concerned.”

Due to the current economic conditions, vendors and contractors have lowered their prices and we need to take advantage of this before the market rebounds. We estimate that if we delay the renovation for one year, it could add at least $750,000 to the cost of the project.

We need new furniture to replace broken or damaged furniture and our appliances are rapidly failing. While the staff has done a great job trying to repair appliances, we are spending more and more money each year from our annual maintenance budget to purchase new appliances. This is not cost effective. In addition, as part of the 2009 renovation, the building façade, all exterior windows and doors must be completely resealed to prevent water damage to the villas and common areas. The resealing will also include the windows inside the villas. If we proceed with this ad hoc approach crews will be in the villas stripping and replacing old caulking for the better part of a day making a mess and disrupting our guests. Resealing the building and interior windows as part of the 10 year refurbishment will be more efficient and will not in anyway disrupt our Owners.

*Question:* Wasn’t Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club renovated just 5 years ago? Why do we need another renovation now?

*Answer:* In 2004, curtains and carpets were replaced, couches and chairs were recovered and granite countertops were added to the kitchens. In 2006, all bedding was replaced with new mattresses and the same sheets and pillows that are used in all Marriott resorts and hotels. There has been no other renovation to the resort. The villas were not repainted, furniture and appliances were not replaced and nothing was done to the lobby or hallways. Now after 10 years of very hard use, the lobby, hallways and villas need to be repainted, 10 year old furniture and appliances need to be replaced and cramped bathrooms and leaky shower enclosures must be updated. The upcoming renovation will not replace the mattresses or bedding which were recently added in 2006.

The hospitality industry standard for hotels and resorts such as Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club is to replace “soft goods” (carpet, curtains and fabric) every five years and to do a total replacement (appliances, cabinets & furniture) and upgrade after ten years. A 94% occupancy rate coupled with the extreme Caribbean climate makes the renovation necessary._


----------



## qlaval

... 2/2

_*Question:* Why is the renovation costing so much?

*Answer:* A standard 10 year renovation that Marriott recommends for a property of this size can average between $9m and $10m. When the Board reviewed Marriott’s recommended scope of
work, nothing was planned for the master bathrooms. Owner feedback continues to tell us that our bathrooms are small, have little storage space and are outdated. In addition, the shower enclosures leak and create a growing maintenance problem for our staff. As a result, the Board directed that the master bathrooms be completely renovated to include new shower tile and enclosures. We also added a granite-top vanity with a double sink and additional storage space to the master bathroom. All of which contributes to the higher than planned costs.

*Question:* How do we know that there will not be another assessment in a few years?

*Answer:* As previously mentioned, in prior years, insufficient annual maintenance fees were placed in the reserve account to fully fund planned renovations and unprogrammed maintenance and repair issues such as replacing all pool pumps and filters. The Board recently created a Finance Committee headed by one of our Board members along with several owner volunteers experienced in finance to help carefully plan and manage our reserve account now and into the future. This committee will be setting formal, written guidelines to prevent the need for future assessments.

*Question:* Owners used to be able to contact the former President about issues and concerns and he would respond directly back to them with an answer. Owners are now being asked to send their questions to a general email address for the Board instead of directly to the President of the Association. Why the change?

*Answer:* Until 6 months ago, there was a single General Manager responsible for both the Ocean Club and the Surf Club. Because the Surf Club was new and because of its size, Ocean Club issues took a back seat to Surf Club issues. As a result, the AOC President stepped into to fill the void by not having our own General Manager. Now that we have our own dedicated General Manager, we have an opportunity to improve the way we respond to owners’ questions.

The vast majority of issues raised by owners are operational in nature and are clearly within the purview of the General Manager to correct, often on the spot. To improve communications and to speed up the response time, our new General Manager has asked that all owner communications come to him directly. Funneling routine, operational issues through the Board only slowed the response to the owners in the past.

One of the Board’s goals is to ensure open and responsive communications with owners. In the past, owners have communicated directly to an individual’s personal email. To ensure consistency and continuity, we have created a single email address for the Board... aocbod@vacationclub.com which will remain the same regardless of who is on the Board. By creating this permanent address, the General Manager will now see owner’s emails at the same time the Board does and can take immediate action without waiting for the Board to forward the email to him for action. This new procedure will get questions answered and problems resolved much more quickly than in the past.


*Board of Directors
Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club*_


----------



## lovearuba

*Where did the letter come from*

Hi
Did you receive the letter from the board or was it posted somewhere?  I did not receive one so I'm curious as to who it was sent to.  It does attempt to answer many of the questions we asked although there is a lot of skepticism on some of the answers.  I am glad they at least acknowledge the fact that we the owners have been asking many of these questions.  Thanks for posting.


----------



## Eric

Here's another opinion you won't want to hear. Stop fighting the fight on TUG. If I were considering purchasing Ocean Club, there is not way I would follow through with all this termoil. Keep the owners informed behind the scenes until this issue is resolved one way or another. Right now you have helped to make your resort fairly useless on the open market. 

I know your answer will be BUT BUT BUT.... I hope you have a better plan behind the scenes because on the surface, you spend the whole time ripping up every comment the HOA makes. Thats great but it's not helping your cause.


----------



## vincenzi

*I Received the Letter Also*



lovearuba said:


> Hi
> Did you receive the letter from the board or was it posted somewhere?  I did not receive one so I'm curious as to who it was sent to.  It does attempt to answer many of the questions we asked although there is a lot of skepticism on some of the answers.  I am glad they at least acknowledge the fact that we the owners have been asking many of these questions.  Thanks for posting.



Yesterday, I received two e-mails.  One was sent directly from the Board.  Marriott Owner Services sent another stating I could down load the letter from the Board.  

Previously, I sent a letter to the Board stating my concerns about the exorbitant maintenance fees and assessment.  So, I assume that is why the Board sent the e-mail to me directly.


----------



## FlyerBobcat

Eric said:


> ... you spend the whole time ripping up every comment the HOA makes. Thats great but it's not helping your cause.



I've continued to follow this thread with a good deal of interest, and I understand that Mark and the owners have a number of legitimate gripes.  But I have to agree -- to some degree -- with this comment from Eric...


----------



## thinze3

marksue said:


> ...When did Marriott's % rise to 48%, when as of a couple of weeks ago I was told by David Babich it was 43% or was the 48% a misprint. Congrats if you got them to pay 5% more, but *they still owe us another 52%*....



Mark, as an outsider who has been reading this thread, I have to ask one simple question. Marriott is paying for half of your new roof already. *Why is it that you feel owners at AOC should not pay a single penny for 14 years use of a roof.* I would expect that if the Marriott resorts I own get 14 years of use out of a roof, then I should be responsible for much of if not all of that cost. Yes, if a "30 year" roof were installed and we only got 14 years, then maybe someone should be responsible for the other half, but NOT all of it.

IMHO - Terry  

P.S.
I do commend you for all your work and do think that maybe you should run for a BOD position in the future. BOD's need people with the kind of energy you have to offer.


----------



## tlwmkw

*Why do you say this is half true?*

They do seem to be attempting to respond to your questions and have some reasonable sounding answers.  Isn't that what you have been asking them to do?  Are you so angry that you are unwilling to listen to what they say when they do respond?  The letter seems to spell things out pretty clearly and give good reasons why there are such dramatic increases.  You may have more of a gripe with the board that they didn't fund properly for future expenses.  I agree with Eric that you shouldn't destroy the reputation of your TS here on TUG- otherwise you will have a worthless unit and Marriott may decide to give up on you and leave you high and dry.


----------



## Eric

The reason why the roof issue at 100% will never fly is they did get over 10 years of usage out of it. Basically Marriott wouldn't have to pay anything under normal circumstances so paying 1/2 for a fairly old roof to me is not a bad compromise. Say what you want, I don't care who is running the HOA, expecting Marriott to pay more is unrealistic and certainly not worth running the resorts reputation over. 





tlwmkw said:


> They do seem to be attempting to respond to your questions and have some reasonable sounding answers.  Isn't that what you have been asking them to do?  Are you so angry that you are unwilling to listen to what they say when they do respond?  The letter seems to spell things out pretty clearly and give good reasons why there are such dramatic increases.  You may have more of a gripe with the board that they didn't fund properly for future expenses.  I agree with Eric that you shouldn't destroy the reputation of your TS here on TUG- otherwise you will have a worthless unit and Marriott may decide to give up on you and leave you high and dry.


----------



## lovearuba

*Marriotts response*

Hi
I dont think Marriott would have responded if this thread was not used.  I also would not have been able to get owner support to send the letter they are now responding to.  I think everyone would agree that Marriott should consider sitting down with a small group of owners to openly address the concerns we have.  That could be done in a mutually respectful way if the ground rules are established first.  So my challenge to Marriott is to set up a meeting where a small group are allowed to discuss those concerns and hopefully work to mutually close out our concerns.


----------



## Luckybee

marksue said:


> just read the FAQ's you sent you. I have to tell you I am quite disappointed in what I would consider half truths and lack of answers to the questions we have been asking.
> 
> 1) You do not address completely why Allan was forced out prior to the owners meeting yet left him there to lead the meeting. While the board is the same the attitude of the board is not. Having Allan as president there was a great deal of transparency and he was wore than willing to speak with owners. Frank, you refuse to speak with owners. Why did you take on the president role if you did not want to deal with owners and represent the owners. We do not need Corey answering emails we need our board to answer the hard questions without going to Marriott for answers.
> 
> 2) You have yet to explain how in January you the board said the building was defective, yet now you say it was not defective. The lack of openness and truth about the building is impacting your ability to have the support of the owners. Can you explain why we have had leaks in the building since the doors opened? Can you explain why the windows have leaked since inception?
> 
> When did Marriott's % rise to 48%, when as of a couple of weeks ago I was told by David Babich it was 43% or was the 48% a misprint. Congrats if you got them to pay 5% more, but they still owe us another 52%.
> 
> 3) How can you say the board represents the owners when we hear nothing from the board when we send emails. All we hear is from Corey, who has to go to Marriott for answers. Decisions are being made which are not necessarily in the best interests given the state of the economy.
> 
> Why are you spending 5 million more, as I heard from David Babich, then Marriott suggested for the renovation.
> 
> You say you want to build a positive relationship with Marriott. What about doing what is best for the owners. I believe Marriott corporate is a good organization, but MVCI is not looking out for owners. Seems to me wanting to build a positive relationship means giving in to what they want, therefore not holding them responsible. If Allan fighting for the owners was not a positive relationship, good for him, at least we felt we had someone fighting for us. Why has MVCI purposely kept MI out of this issue.
> 
> 4) Tell us why Marriott has not paid there fair share for space utilized in the Ocean club. Why has Marriott not reimbursed us for the damage caused by the leaks due to a defective roof and waterproofing. The damage by the storm was due to poor waterproofing of the building why isn't Marriott reimbursing us for that.
> 
> If Marriott paid us our rightful dues, then we wouldn't have the large increase or special assessments you are now piling on to us owners..
> 
> Why not leave it up to the owners to decide if they want to have the renovation now or delay it due to economic conditions. Oh i forgot you don't care about the owners. If doing the work now would save 750k, why has the assessment not gone down. Seems like there is double dipping somewhere.
> 
> 
> This whole issue could be put to rest if we could get MI to talk with the owners. Also if this board really wants to increase transparency then make board meetings open to all owners if they are in Aruba or not. Want transparency, talk to us not using Marriott and their puppets to speak for you. There is no confidence in this board. In fact I believe it is a 3 person board, Steve, Frank and Melissa. Why do I say that? When i received this email today I called Allan and asked him about it and he had no idea what I was talking about. I asked if he read my email to the board and he told me he did not have access to the board email account. Why is that Frank? What are you afraid of, that he may tell us the truth.
> 
> I believe this board needs to look inside and if they can not represent the owners as they are supposed to, then please resign and let us put it board members that will fight for the owners. This FAQ has not addressed the owners questions. We want real answers not MVCI answers.




I think that it is wonderful that as a result of some of Mark"s (and others)hard work the "board" is beginning to answer some of the tough questions. This is exactly what I think the owners want to see. That said I personally believe that the questions still being raised by Mark need to be answered. This could however be a start. What still concerns me , alot I might add, is that if Mark is correct, and Allen was not informed of this prior to the sending of same, is why that happened. 
Leaving aside the roof and renovations for the moment, my biggest concern in this from the beginning is why some on the board seem to be confused about whose interests they are there to represent. When you take the board member who without question has been the most pro owner member, and play back door games to remove his authority the only one who benefits from that is Marriott, certainly not the owners. The fact that that seems to be continuing still worries me a great deal.


----------



## Luckybee

Eric said:


> Here's another opinion you won't want to hear. Stop fighting the fight on TUG. If I were considering purchasing Ocean Club, there is not way I would follow through with all this termoil. Keep the owners informed behind the scenes until this issue is resolved one way or another. Right now you have helped to make your resort fairly useless on the open market.
> 
> I know your answer will be BUT BUT BUT.... I hope you have a better plan behind the scenes because on the surface, you spend the whole time ripping up every comment the HOA makes. Thats great but it's not helping your cause.



No "But, But , But"  from me...I simply disagree. Had Mark not brought this forward on Tug and elsewhere, many more owners (and potential owners)would still be in the dark and this much would not have been accomplished. It is for exactly the reasons that you point out that the board and Marriott are "starting" to respond to owners concerns.


----------



## bish60

*bish60*

I am a relatively new AOC owner (and new to this site) and have been busy reading everyone's feedback regarding the increased maintence fees for 2009. I agree that these fees do indeed seem VERY accessive. You can surf the web and actually get cheaper Aruba vacations for what we will be paying in 2009 to own. BUT .... what are we to do, not pay them ?!?!? I understand everyone's frustration, but it seems we really don't have much of a choice. 

As for the BOD issues, you can only hope that the people elected to the board (who are also owners) will do whatever they can to keep the best interests of the owners in the forefront. 

I see that there are some very passionate people adding their feedback of these issues to this site. I will continue to visit on a daily basis and include my thoughts and as necessary.


----------



## Eric

I don't agree. Thats what you have a voted in HOA for. If I own Microsoft stock and didn't like the way Bill Gates was running the company, could I expect him to talk to me about it ? Again, thats not realistic and now how things happen in the real world. You have an HOA and can attend any open board meeting to address concerns.



lovearuba said:


> Hi
> I dont think Marriott would have responded if this thread was not used.  I also would not have been able to get owner support to send the letter they are now responding to.  I think everyone would agree that Marriott should consider sitting down with a small group of owners to openly address the concerns we have.  That could be done in a mutually respectful way if the ground rules are established first.  So my challenge to Marriott is to set up a meeting where a small group are allowed to discuss those concerns and hopefully work to mutually close out our concerns.


----------



## Eric

No offense but the only thing accomplished so far is pissed off owners and a bad reputation for the resort. What you are able to accomplish down the road, remains to be seen. 




Luckybee said:


> No "But, But , But"  from me...I simply disagree. Had Mark not brought this forward on Tug and elsewhere, many more owners (and potential owners)would still be in the dark and this much would not have been accomplished. It is for exactly the reasons that you point out that the board and Marriott are "starting" to respond to owners concerns.


----------



## Eric

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## qlaval

Luckybee said:


> ...Leaving aside the roof and renovations for the moment, my biggest concern in this from the beginning is why some on the board seem to be confused about whose interests they are there to represent. When you take the board member who without question has been the most pro owner member, and play back door games to remove his authority the only one who benefits from that is Marriott, certainly not the owners. The fact that that seems to be continuing still worries me a great deal.



DITTO here.  

_...the Board developed a succession plan to ensure a seamless transition from Mr. Cohen’s... The plan called for a new president to be elected in 2008 so that Mr. Cohen would have the opportunity in his last few months on the Board to mentor the new President. Mr. Frank Knox, Senior Vice President of BB&T Bank in Charlotte, N.C., was elected by the Board at its annual meeting to succeed Mr. Cohen per the agreed-upon succession plan._

The Plan that was developed is called a "*putsch*".
The President should have been elected by the owners NOT the Board...


----------



## timeos2

*Take the most effective approach*



qlaval said:


> DITTO here.
> 
> _...the Board developed a succession plan to ensure a seamless transition from Mr. Cohen’s... The plan called for a new president to be elected in 2008 so that Mr. Cohen would have the opportunity in his last few months on the Board to mentor the new President. Mr. Frank Knox, Senior Vice President of BB&T Bank in Charlotte, N.C., was elected by the Board at its annual meeting to succeed Mr. Cohen per the agreed-upon succession plan._
> 
> The Plan that was developed is called a "*putsch*".
> The President should have been elected by the owners NOT the Board...



The owners do not get to directly elect the Board officers. That is an internal function of the Board itself. The owners get to vote for who those Board members are.  This focus on who is the President (or any other Board position) is also misplaced as the spot is largely ceremonial and technical. Each Board member has exactly the same vote power as any other. Some just get to sign Board approved documents or letters to the owners. 

As for the recent letter from the Board posted above I have to agree they make a good case and seem to give full answers. It appears some owners aren't going to accept any answer if it isn't what they want to hear. Thats OK but it doesn't make for a strong legal argument should it come to that. 

Mark SHOULD run for the Board as it sounds like the term of the ex-President ends next year.  The most effective way to get heard and to present your thoughts and ideas is to be on the Board. Far more effective than threatening to sue.  

As for airing the dirty laundry in public here on TUG while I see a small potential downside overall, given the situation an owner trying to rally others to his/her cause faces, it is one of the few ways they can really reach out. I doubt it would have any long term effect on the value / desirability of the resort or ownership there as a relatively small group will see this and even fewer will remember or care. I wish every resort would post tons of information here or on their websites as informed owners/buyers/guests are the best.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> My issue and the issue witht he hundreds of owners I ahve been speaking is the lack of transparency from the board.  We just got a letter from the board that is onece again Marriott dictating what should be said.  The information from that letter will be posted sometime today, with a response to the board.



I do not get it. You ask for transparency, that the board provides a detailed response to almost every question you raised on this forum. And you continue to rail on about this being a MCVI provided response. 

Again while you may not like the response as it does not fit in with your perception of reality, you have to recognize that they have responded to your request for transparency from the board. And they are your elected BOD.

And it really hurts the merits of your position, when you constantly rant and rave about the MCVI conspiracy. For instance, letting Allan continue to run the meeting in which a new president was selected. 

You have raised a number of questions. They have responded. Do not marginalize your efforts and the positive contributions you have made by nitpicking their response and continuing with the conspiracy theories.


----------



## ecwinch

Eric said:


> Here's another opinion you won't want to hear. Stop fighting the fight on TUG. I



While I do agree with most of what you have to say, we disagree here. I applaud MarkSue for having this discussion out in the open, and responding to the "devil's advocate" type questions a number of us raised.  

I have learned a lot about how HOA's operate from the discussions here. If this had occurred behind the scenes, I would have missed that opportunity and been the poorer for it.

And, if I was a prospective owner, I would rather be fully informed. Purchasing at OC, and then discovering this information post-purchase, might be lead to some terrifying moments.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> I do not get it. You ask for transparency, that the board provides a detailed response to almost every question you raised on this forum. And you continue to rail on about this being a MCVI provided response.
> 
> Again while you may not like the response as it does not fit in with your perception of reality, you have to recognize that they have responded to your request for transparency from the board. And they are your elected BOD.
> 
> And it really hurts the merits of your position, when you constantly rant and rave about the MCVI conspiracy. For instance, letting Allan continue to run the meeting in which a new president was selected.
> 
> You have raised a number of questions. They have responded. Do not marginalize your efforts and the positive contributions you have made by nitpicking their response and continuing with the conspiracy theories.



I think I just entered the twilight zone...this isnt some bizarre conspiracy theory. There is without question some very questionable things that happened here. Are the people responding in this manner being so naive not to accept this ? This isnt Mark's "perception " of reality it is reality. Because of previous edited out comments I wont refer to the specific unscrupulous things that did happen but they werent anyone's "perception" .


----------



## ecwinch

I agree that there are some BOD decisions that have been made that raise questions. And a number of those have been responded to. You may not agree with the decisions, but you seemingly view every response through the prism  that MCVI is influencing the BOD to make decisions that benefit MCVI and not owners. It really is the whole tone of the dialog. From the "removal" of President, motives behind the change in board strategy, accusing Eric of being a Marriott employee, etc.

I mean just in the post above:

Post # 423 - "Why has MVCI purposely kept MI out of this issue"
Post # 423 - "Want transparency, talk to us not using Marriott and their puppets to speak for you."
Post # 423 - "I asked if he read my email to the board and he told me he did not have access to the board email account. Why is that Frank? What are you afraid of, that he may tell us the truth."

And that is just one post, having gone through this thread since the beginning, there are numerous other examples.


----------



## marksue

*Transparency*

I am reposting this to show you a little that is going on behind the scenes.  This is an email from an owner who was dialed into the board call last Friday.  Allan who has supported the owners for years and been open to us is now ignored by the board.  Once again he was looking out for owners. 

He wanted to give us the option to decide to delay the renovation, but no, the board would not even second his motion.  Why not let the owners decide? When he went to support a board memebr who looked at charging rentors a feww, once she got his support, she no longer would support it, becuase Marriott said no.  Once again who dictates what the board does, owners or Marriott.  



*As concerned owners at the Marriott Ocean Club, I wanted to provide you
with information on what transpired at the Board meeting this past
Friday. Based on that meeting, all owner concerns about this Board seem
well justified as they seem to have little interest in hearing from
Ocean Club owners regarding any of the issues and they are moving "full
steam " ahead despite the significant economic problems that many people
are facing and outstanding isues about possible Marriott liability for
some of the roof and other structural conditions at the Ocean Club.

I happened to attend the Board meeting merely by chance as it seemed to
be a well kept secret by the Board, On Thursday, December 18 I was at
the front desk at the Ocean Club in Aruba when I noticed a small tent
card partially hidden at the end of the desk noting the Board meeting
for Tuesday, December 17 at 3PM. Upon inquiry of OceanClub management, I
learned that it was actually sceduled for 4PM on Friday, December 19 and
was later told it was really at 3PM. One would think that notice of a
Board meeting would be prominently and accurately displayed to owners.

The meeting was attended in person by a number of Ocean Club Marriott
staff including Corey Guest, the General Manager of AOC, some of his
staff including the CFO, the General Manager of the Marriott Resort on
Aruba (Ocean Club, Surf Club and hotel) and by telephone a number of
MVCI representatives and the AOC Board. All of the Board members phoned
in to the meeting which was chaired by Frank Knox, the newly installed
President, who finally surfaced although apparently does not like to
respond to owner Emails.

Most of the Board meeting discussion focused on the planned
refurbishments and renovations with Board member, Steve Richards
discussing how he had been able to cut some of the proposed renovations,
saving around a million dollars, before he added some back in to the
mix. It was noted that a potential problem with having assessments paid
in two years rather than all at once was that there would not be
sufficient money to pay for it all and costs could increase.
Apparently, Marriott will be helping in bridging this concern but the
discussion was not totally clear on the specifics. Projected
expenditures for renovations for 2009 are 13 million and for 2010 1.2 to
1.3 million. 

Allan Cohen, former President of the AOC owner's Association, spoke of
the need for some renovations but noted that considering the sizable
increase in maintenance and reserve fees as well as the continuing
significant economic problems that most are feeling, the Board should
poll the owners on whether they support all of these
renovations/assessments at the present time. Allan made a motion to
this effect and since no one else spoke up, I asked to be heard. Knox,
referring to me as Mr. Berg, initially sought to disallow my comments,
but when I reminded him of my right as an owner which was confirmed by
Corey Guest's reading of the owner documents, he relented telling me I
had "2 minutes". Reminding Knox that I was Mr. Berkowitz and not Mr.
Berg(he seemed to have a "Mr. Berg" on his mind,) I reiterated Allan's
concerns and also noted that both Marriott and this Board had
credibility problems with owners as a result of their handling of the
roof and other structural issues and the lack of Board responses to
owner Emails and concerns. I further noted that the significant
increases in maintenance and reserve fees together with the planned
assessments could adversely effect many owners considering the
troublesome economic conditions worldwide and, therefore, it was very
important that on this issue the Board be transparent and submit this
matter to the owners for a vote. Led by Frank Knox, the Board voted
against this motion, with no one even offering a second. No one spoke up
or expressed any concern for the owners other than Allan and myself.

Another issue raised by Board member, Melissa Pericolosi, was to have
non owners e.g. renters or those who "trade in" pay a utility surcharge.
Utility costs were projected to rise significantly under the recently
approved budget for Aruba. Marriott spoke against this motion arguing
that it would violate its agreement with Interval International. Allan
Cohen asked that Board legal counsel review whether there were any
issues to prevent such a surcharge and again led by Knox, there was no
support for such a referral to legal counsel. Even Pericolosi, who first
raised it had no interest in pursuing a further legal evaluation.

Prior to adjourning the meeting, Board member Richards said that in the
interest of fair balance (I guess to my earlier comments of concern), he
needed to note that he had heard from owners about the need for
renovations. After the meeting Corey Guest mentioned to me that he
passes on to Richard any owner comments on conditions of the villas on a
regular basis and that was what he was referring to in his comments.

Happy to address any questions and I have no problem with these comments
being shared with any concerned owners. Regards, Ken*


----------



## marksue

In response to some of the items brought up on here.  First let me say, I respect what others have to say.  I do have a great deal of energy around this and some people may not like my response because I come on strong.  As I have said previously, there is a lot of info I have that I am not revealing here.  I am also not alone in this effort.  People smarter than me, including lawyers, Drs, and many concerned owners who are behind this effort and each doing their part.  I thank them for their support. 

We as owners only have threads like Tug to voice our opinions and get other owners behind us.  I literally have hundreds of emails from owners who are outraged by the events that have occurred. 

There is no resale value today for the Ocean Club.  Why would you buy a unit at the Ocean club when you can pay almost the same price and save 500 in MF from the surf club?

Yes the letter says this was a planned switching of power.  I can not reveal how I know but I do. Allan was forced out as president.  He was forced out the day prior to the owners meeting; he was caught completely off guard. You could see how uncomfortable he was presenting to the owners.  Frank wasn't even at the meeting.  Allan also had to let Marriott answer most of the questions.

Yes the board attempted to answer questions, but they have not given us answers to what we were asking ie: Why in the papers for a lawsuit they said the building was defective, but now they don't.  I and others want to know why the discrepancy.

Why was a board member not aware of this document, why is a board member not given access to the email sent to the board’s mailbox.  Tells you that if you support the owners you are blocked and your opinion does not matter.

Why has the board refused to share with owners the engineers report on the roof and building?  There is a lot of info they do not want us to know.

I can not address everything, but i think this highlights the lack of transparency.  

As for the board, Marriott has the right to determine who can be nominated to the board.  Why should Marriott have that right?  Let who ever wants to run, run, and if the owners want that person, then Marriott should not have a say as to who is on the board.

There are many more issues that  have not yet addressed but asked by many owners.  These are difficult questions around the finance deals Marriott put in place that is keeping revenue from the OCean Club owners.

One other point, Melissa is President of her Marriott timeshare development in Florida. I believe there is a conflict of interest being on this board as well.

So that is why you see me pan the responses by the board.  They are not answering the hard questions.  

Mark


----------



## london

*Most Posts & Disbanding From Marriott*

This thread has the most posts that I have seen on the BBS.

As I recall some Marriott timeshares in Colorado could not agree with Marriott management on issues.

Those resorts elected to become non Marriott brand timeshares.

The board of directors represent the owners and should be looking out for the best interests of all owners.

The saga will continue for years to come.


----------



## dioxide45

Didn't you post this already???



marksue said:


> I am reposting this to show you a little that is going on behind the scenes.  This is an email from an owner who was dialed into the board call last Friday.  Allan who has supported the owners for years and been open to us is now ignored by the board.  Once again he was looking out for owners.
> 
> He wanted to give us the option to decide to delay the renovation, but no, the board would not even second his motion.  Why not let the owners decide? When he went to support a board memebr who looked at charging rentors a feww, once she got his support, she no longer would support it, becuase Marriott said no.  Once again who dictates what the board does, owners or Marriott.
> 
> 
> 
> *As concerned owners at the Marriott Ocean Club, I wanted to provide you
> with information on what transpired at the Board meeting this past
> Friday. Based on that meeting, all owner concerns about this Board seem
> well justified as they seem to have little interest in hearing from
> Ocean Club owners regarding any of the issues and they are moving "full
> steam " ahead despite the significant economic problems that many people
> are facing and outstanding isues about possible Marriott liability for
> some of the roof and other structural conditions at the Ocean Club.
> 
> I happened to attend the Board meeting merely by chance as it seemed to
> be a well kept secret by the Board, On Thursday, December 18 I was at
> the front desk at the Ocean Club in Aruba when I noticed a small tent
> card partially hidden at the end of the desk noting the Board meeting
> for Tuesday, December 17 at 3PM. Upon inquiry of OceanClub management, I
> learned that it was actually sceduled for 4PM on Friday, December 19 and
> was later told it was really at 3PM. One would think that notice of a
> Board meeting would be prominently and accurately displayed to owners.
> 
> The meeting was attended in person by a number of Ocean Club Marriott
> staff including Corey Guest, the General Manager of AOC, some of his
> staff including the CFO, the General Manager of the Marriott Resort on
> Aruba (Ocean Club, Surf Club and hotel) and by telephone a number of
> MVCI representatives and the AOC Board. All of the Board members phoned
> in to the meeting which was chaired by Frank Knox, the newly installed
> President, who finally surfaced although apparently does not like to
> respond to owner Emails.
> 
> Most of the Board meeting discussion focused on the planned
> refurbishments and renovations with Board member, Steve Richards
> discussing how he had been able to cut some of the proposed renovations,
> saving around a million dollars, before he added some back in to the
> mix. It was noted that a potential problem with having assessments paid
> in two years rather than all at once was that there would not be
> sufficient money to pay for it all and costs could increase.
> Apparently, Marriott will be helping in bridging this concern but the
> discussion was not totally clear on the specifics. Projected
> expenditures for renovations for 2009 are 13 million and for 2010 1.2 to
> 1.3 million.
> 
> Allan Cohen, former President of the AOC owner's Association, spoke of
> the need for some renovations but noted that considering the sizable
> increase in maintenance and reserve fees as well as the continuing
> significant economic problems that most are feeling, the Board should
> poll the owners on whether they support all of these
> renovations/assessments at the present time. Allan made a motion to
> this effect and since no one else spoke up, I asked to be heard. Knox,
> referring to me as Mr. Berg, initially sought to disallow my comments,
> but when I reminded him of my right as an owner which was confirmed by
> Corey Guest's reading of the owner documents, he relented telling me I
> had "2 minutes". Reminding Knox that I was Mr. Berkowitz and not Mr.
> Berg(he seemed to have a "Mr. Berg" on his mind,) I reiterated Allan's
> concerns and also noted that both Marriott and this Board had
> credibility problems with owners as a result of their handling of the
> roof and other structural issues and the lack of Board responses to
> owner Emails and concerns. I further noted that the significant
> increases in maintenance and reserve fees together with the planned
> assessments could adversely effect many owners considering the
> troublesome economic conditions worldwide and, therefore, it was very
> important that on this issue the Board be transparent and submit this
> matter to the owners for a vote. Led by Frank Knox, the Board voted
> against this motion, with no one even offering a second. No one spoke up
> or expressed any concern for the owners other than Allan and myself.
> 
> Another issue raised by Board member, Melissa Pericolosi, was to have
> non owners e.g. renters or those who "trade in" pay a utility surcharge.
> Utility costs were projected to rise significantly under the recently
> approved budget for Aruba. Marriott spoke against this motion arguing
> that it would violate its agreement with Interval International. Allan
> Cohen asked that Board legal counsel review whether there were any
> issues to prevent such a surcharge and again led by Knox, there was no
> support for such a referral to legal counsel. Even Pericolosi, who first
> raised it had no interest in pursuing a further legal evaluation.
> 
> Prior to adjourning the meeting, Board member Richards said that in the
> interest of fair balance (I guess to my earlier comments of concern), he
> needed to note that he had heard from owners about the need for
> renovations. After the meeting Corey Guest mentioned to me that he
> passes on to Richard any owner comments on conditions of the villas on a
> regular basis and that was what he was referring to in his comments.
> 
> Happy to address any questions and I have no problem with these comments
> being shared with any concerned owners. Regards, Ken*


----------



## timeos2

*Some answers to "answers"*



marksue said:


> Most of the Board meeting discussion focused on the planned
> refurbishments and renovations with Board member, Steve Richards
> discussing how he had been able to cut some of the proposed renovations,
> saving around a million dollars, before he added some back in to the
> mix. It was noted that a potential problem with having assessments paid
> in two years rather than all at once was that there would not be
> sufficient money to pay for it all and costs could increase.
> Apparently, Marriott will be helping in bridging this concern but the
> discussion was not totally clear on the specifics. Projected
> expenditures for renovations for 2009 are 13 million and for 2010 1.2 to
> 1.3 million.



And why wouldn't the Board be discussing this? It ia a MAJOR renovation, apparently desperately needed, and it most likely was the reason for the meeting being held. This is the Board  doing what they should - overseeing the operation of the resort. They are not meeting to talk to owners or argue. They are meeting to plan the best they can for what is needed.  



marksue said:


> Allan Cohen, former President of the AOC owner's Association, spoke of
> the need for some renovations but noted that considering the sizable
> increase in maintenance and reserve fees as well as the continuing
> significant economic problems that most are feeling, the Board should
> poll the owners on whether they support all of these
> renovations/assessments at the present time. Allan made a motion to
> this effect and since no one else spoke up, I asked to be heard. Knox,
> referring to me as Mr. Berg, initially sought to disallow my comments,
> but when I reminded him of my right as an owner which was confirmed by
> Corey Guest's reading of the owner documents, he relented telling me I
> had "2 minutes". Reminding Knox that I was Mr. Berkowitz and not Mr.
> Berg(he seemed to have a "Mr. Berg" on his mind,) I reiterated Allan's
> concerns and also noted that both Marriott and this Board had
> credibility problems with owners as a result of their handling of the
> roof and other structural issues and the lack of Board responses to
> owner Emails and concerns. I further noted that the significant
> increases in maintenance and reserve fees together with the planned
> assessments could adversely effect many owners considering the
> troublesome economic conditions worldwide and, therefore, it was very
> important that on this issue the Board be transparent and submit this
> matter to the owners for a vote. Led by Frank Knox, the Board voted
> against this motion, with no one even offering a second. No one spoke up
> or expressed any concern for the owners other than Allan and myself.



Again they gave the owner a chance to speak, they didn't have to under most rules of Board meetings, and then addressed the questions. Just because they chose not to act (not the answer some wanted) doesn't mean that anything wrong was done.  They have a right as the elected Board to act or not on any proposal. That's what Boards do. There is no requirement to poll the owners - thats' why they were elected.  Read the documents you agreed to. 



marksue said:


> Another issue raised by Board member, Melissa Pericolosi, was to have
> non owners e.g. renters or those who "trade in" pay a utility surcharge.
> Utility costs were projected to rise significantly under the recently
> approved budget for Aruba. Marriott spoke against this motion arguing
> that it would violate its agreement with Interval International. Allan
> Cohen asked that Board legal counsel review whether there were any
> issues to prevent such a surcharge and again led by Knox, there was no
> support for such a referral to legal counsel. Even Pericolosi, who first
> raised it had no interest in pursuing a further legal evaluation.



That is true. Every resort (except DVC who flaunted the rules with II and got them to agree to an exception, believe me you don't want to go down THAT road as you will be hit with very negative scores for doing that) agrees to treat owners/exchange guests the same. If they charge guests they need to charge owners as well. Do you want that?  Again Marriott was presenting the facts of the situation not conspiring to somehow raise fees for owners. The Board listened and reached a logical conclusion. If you don't agree run for the Board, make a better case and get the majority to vote with you. 




marksue said:


> Prior to adjourning the meeting, Board member Richards said that in the
> interest of fair balance (I guess to my earlier comments of concern), he
> needed to note that he had heard from owners about the need for
> renovations. After the meeting Corey Guest mentioned to me that he
> passes on to Richard any owner comments on conditions of the villas on a
> regular basis and that was what he was referring to in his comments.



So the messages are getting through to the Board. If, in their opinion, the best course of action is to move ahead with the renovation that is what they were elected to do. Act in the best interest of the Association - the resort. Not cave in to a group of owners, or management, that think they know best. It's not easy being a Board member or making tough choices. But it sure sounds to me like this Board is acting in the best, ongoing interest of the resort and in having a reasonable relationship, not a cozy one, with the hired management. 

It sounds like Marriott is stepping up with millions of dollars in outright payments and possible bridge loans. They don't HAVE to do that as a management and maybe the Board is recognizing that as a valuable contribution. The Board states they had outside engineers look at the property and find the offers acceptable. Do the owners complaining have OUTSIDE investigations that prove the building/roof was flawed from day one and that Marriott knew it and somehow hid it?   If you don't want the higher overhead of a brand name like Marriott then fire them and bring in another management. But most owners of a Marriott property seem to prefer the cache of the name even if it means higher fees. If the Board is acting to maintain that relationship how are they acting against the majority of owners? 

Again it seems that the complaint is more "it's not my way" or "it's not enough" rather than "lets make this work at a price we can live with".  I'd find it hard to say this Board isn't acting properly. They may be listening to Marriott as well as the owners but that's why you pay big bucks to a management firm. If you can't trust them then boot them. But do it through the proper channels and in a respectful way if you hope to be taken seriously. And be ready to hear answers you may not think are correct but are reasonable and can be backed up. That's what a court is going to look at should that path be taken.


----------



## marksue

Read it again they are not listening to owners or wanting to listen to owners.  Allan asked to ahve the owners vote ont hsi refurbishment since there is a great deal of anger around the expense, but the board didn't want to even entertain it.


----------



## dioxide45

marksue said:


> One other point, Melissa is President of her Marriott timeshare development in Florida. I believe there is a conflict of interest being on this board as well.



She is president at Grande Vista. I don't see any conflict of interest here. Many times people who are on the BOD are on boards other places and even serve as chairman/president. This holds true in the private sector. Many CEOs of large corporations serve on boards for other companies. There is no conflict of interest. President of two boards may be an issue, but not just serving on two boards. It really isn't a full time job.


----------



## marksue

Marriott tells you, you can not serve on more than 1 board.  Being president on 1 board and having Marriott take care of that development but you have to do this in Aruba is a conflict.  Not saying that is happening but the conflict opportunity is there.


----------



## timeos2

marksue said:


> Read it again they are not listening to owners or wanting to listen to owners.  Allan asked to ahve the owners vote ont hsi refurbishment since there is a great deal of anger around the expense, but the board didn't want to even entertain it.



And that is their right. They heard the request and didn't decide to act on it. There is no requirement to have an owner vote. That isn't the way a condo/timeshare operates. Read the documents - they have that right. It is not by any stretch an offense that could lead to a recall. You don't have to like it but you may have to live with it.


----------



## Sunbum

*Marksue*



> There is no resale value today for the Ocean Club. Why would you buy a unit at the Ocean club when you can pay almost the same price and save 500 in MF from the surf club?



If you are to gain/keep credability you need to get the facts right. This is absolutely NOT TRUE! I have had a few pm 's with LOVEARUBA about this. You can go to the top 3 resale websites and you will not find more than four, 2bdrm plat weeks for sale, at any price! No one is dumping and basically no one is even selling!

There is always lots of gold for sale.


----------



## marksue

I have a 1 bedroom for sale saying make an offer and there has not been a single response.  I have talked to others that have given up trying to sell, as they have not had any offers that make sense.  I stand by my statement.  Why would you buy inthe OC and pay more for a 2 bedroom and get hit with assesments for 2 years unless you can steal a unit.  To me that is not a market. You get a better deal buying a surf club unit if you can't steal an ocean club unit.


----------



## dioxide45

marksue said:


> Marriott tells you, you can not serve on more than 1 board.  Being president on 1 board and having Marriott take care of that development but you have to do this in Aruba is a conflict.  Not saying that is happening but the conflict opportunity is there.



Show me where this is written that one can not serve on more than one HOA board.

A conflict of interest would be if Melissa served on the board and was also the owner of the roofing company doing the roof renovations. Serving on two independent boards is not a conflict. I don't see where her decisions on one board could affect anything with regards to the operations of the other resort. I don't even see an opportunity for conflict.

Board members meet usually only a few times a year and make very high level decisions regarding the resort operations. It is not a full time job. These people usually have other full time jobs. They don't get paid other than for travel expenses to serve on the BOD.


----------



## marksue

I know a board member on a Marriott TS board and when he was looking to buy in another resort he was told you can not serve on more than 1 board that marriott prevents that from happening.


----------



## dioxide45

It doesn't appear to be written and is actually hearsay. Marriott is only a management company. The boards are independent owner associations. These people don't work for Marriott when serving on the board, (some may be Marriott employees) they are working for the owners. I don't see where Marriott could dictate who serves on independent HOA boards.


----------



## Sunbum

*Marksue*



> I have a 1 bedroom for sale saying make an offer and there has not been a single response. I have talked to others that have given up trying to sell, as they have not had any offers that make sense. I stand by my statement. Why would you buy inthe OC and pay more for a 2 bedroom and get hit with assesments for 2 years unless you can steal a unit. To me that is not a market. You get a better deal buying a surf club unit if you can't steal an ocean club unit.



I guess what you are saying is that people are not lining up to buy one bedroom, gold weeks. There has always been a ton of gold weeks for sale. This is not something new.

Most of your response is trying to convince me to buy at the SC. Most people i know will NOT buy at the Surf Club. They will pay a few grand extra to be at the Ocean Club. I have friends looking to buy at the Ocean Club as i type this. 

Again, there is no dumping, no firesales, not even a good deal to be had! If anyone wants to dump their's let me know.(2bdrm, plat)


----------



## dioxide45

Sunbum said:


> I guess what you are saying is that people are not lining up to buy one bedroom, gold weeks. There has always been a ton of gold weeks for sale. This is not something new.
> 
> Most of your response is trying to convince me to buy at the SC. Most people i know will NOT buy at the Surf Club. They will pay a few grand extra to be at the Ocean Club. I have friends looking to buy at the Ocean Club as i type this.
> 
> Again, there is no dumping, no firesales, not even a good deal to be had! If anyone wants to dump their's let me know.(2bdrm, plat)



I think the point trying to be made is that there isn't dumping being done because you can't even dump the weeks. I don't know why anyone would want to buy at the OC. Just wait a few more years and you will save a lot of money since the SA will be over.


----------



## Sunbum

*Marksue*

Check out Redweek.com. The OC has about 220 rooms and there is 18 for sale. The SC has 600 + rooms and 50 are for sale. The  ratio looks pretty close me. Still no fire sale.

E-bay has 3 listed. Two at the SC and One Gold week at the OC.


----------



## Sunbum

> I think the point trying to be made is that there isn't dumping being done because you can't even dump the weeks. I don't know why anyone would want to buy at the OC. Just wait a few more years and you will save a lot of money since the SA will be over.



What are you trying to say? Your comment makes no sense.


----------



## dioxide45

Sunbum said:


> What are you trying to say? Your comment makes no sense.



Basically people know that they won't be able to sell their weeks, so they are not even going to bother trying to list it.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> I have a 1 bedroom for sale saying make an offer and there has not been a single response.  I have talked to others that have given up trying to sell, as they have not had any offers that make sense.  I stand by my statement.  Why would you buy inthe OC and pay more for a 2 bedroom and get hit with assesments for 2 years unless you can steal a unit.  To me that is not a market. You get a better deal buying a surf club unit if you can't steal an ocean club unit.



Because in two years, OC will be a newly refurbished resort on par with SC. And the resort will be more appealing as it does not suffer from the over-built condition that the SC has. The down-side of that equation is that the MF will likely always be higher then the SC, as their are fewer units in the OC to spread certain fixed operating costs (i.e. mgt, insurance, etc) over. That is the fallacy of comparing the OC to the SC - it is an apples to oranges comparision.

Having just spent a week at SC, I would much rather stay at OC, once the planned refurbishments have been completed.


----------



## Sunbum

*dioxide45*



dioxide45 said:


> Basically people know that they won't be able to sell their weeks, so they are not even going to bother trying to list it.



That is the craziest thing i have ever heard!


----------



## dioxide45

Sunbum said:


> That is the craziest thing i have ever heard!



Why is this crazy? Back when gas was at $4.50 a gallon there were a lot of people parking their SUV's; they weren't dumping them, they weren't selling them. They knew they were worthless and they couldn't sell them if they tried. Some dealerships were taking them as trade-ins but giving very little for them. So they just parked them and when the prices dropped they started driving them again. Doesn't sound so crazy at all.


----------



## ecwinch

london said:


> This thread has the most posts that I have seen on the BBS.
> 
> As I recall some Marriott timeshares in Colorado could not agree with Marriott management on issues.
> 
> Those resorts elected to become non Marriott brand timeshares.
> 
> The board of directors represent the owners and should be looking out for the best interests of all owners.
> 
> The saga will continue for years to come.



And in Steamside situation, how about those owners that bought into the "Marriott"  brand of timeshares, and now are on the outside looking in. It was not a 100% vote to opt out of MCVI system, in that situation some owners lost.


----------



## Sunbum

dioxide45 said:


> Why is this crazy? Back when gas was at $4.50 a gallon there were a lot of people parking their SUV's; they weren't dumping them, they weren't selling them. They knew they were worthless and they couldn't sell them if they tried. Some dealerships were taking them as trade-ins but giving very little for them. So they just parked them and when the prices dropped they started driving them again. Doesn't sound so crazy at all.



There is a problem with your analogy, you obviously did not check the Auto Trader when the value of SUV's was dropping. It was full of people trying to sell them. As were the dealership's lots.

Try again.


----------



## Dave M

marksue said:


> Marriott tells you, you can not serve on more than 1 board.


As has happened with a number of your claims here, once again this is absolutely not true. As just one example, the same individual - an owner, not a Marriott employee - is president of three Marriott HOA Boards - Summit Watch, Royal Palms and Cypress Harbour.


----------



## Glenn Saunders

*Live Life to the Fullest Dude*

Have family on island now so not much time to keep up to date with your website but I had dinner a couple days ago with one of the primary former MVCI sales managers for the Ocean and Surf Club who is a long time diving friend of mine; he left and now heads up the new TDS Anabui fractional ownership project which costs over $100k just for entry into the program. He brought up some good points when we were reviewing this website together and presented his own past experiences with management and the board. It seems to me that after listening to him and reading these posts that there are some serious issues that need to be resolved. I may see a bit flippant about your issues since I am not an owner of your timeshare and merely only enjoy reading the comments, however, it does appear that your board is doing more than I did while I was on our condo association board back home (that wasn't much though). Someone mentioned that they do this type of job on a volunteer basis -simply for that reason is why I resigned and am glad for that since you get no kudos. Sunbum says 'Life is Short' - to those that may think about running on a board - don't do it as the headaches aren't worth it - from personal experiece I know how true that is. For curiosity sake, it was never answered by 'marksue', but where did his email addresses actually come from (see earlier posts) and why is he so sure that all the responses he's been asking from your Board are all always the wrong responses )again, see earlier posts). It seems that he or she (androgynous name) may be now avoiding the tough questions, however, I may have been hard on 'marksue' in my earlier posts because of the apparent stubborness and unwillingness to be flexible and listen to others - and this is from a non-owner point of view like many others - but his persistence should be commended. Just make sure that persistence, by anyone, is not viewed upon as arrogance and ignorance. Life is short and what comes around goes around so enjoy it to the fullest. By the way, for those of you from up north (even as far as my home town of Dallas) the weather here today was great - breezy and in the high 80's. We're leaving soon to go even furhter south of the border for a few weeks; I'll keep up to date though as this is simply just good entertainment (especially after a few vodkas). Good luck -


----------



## thinze3

Sunbum said:


> There is a problem with your analogy, you obviously did not check the Auto Trader when the value of SUV's was dropping. It was full of people trying to sell them. As were the dealership's lots.
> 
> Try again.




We own a Yukon XL and contemplated getting rid of it last summer. I didn't sell because my gut told me that I could drive it for another year and actually get more money for it in the future. In other words, it paid not to sell.

Now that gas is about 60% cheaper I am very glad I did not sell it. I assume that there were many people who did sell there large SUV's, but also many who didn't bother because they new the market was not there.

I think that is the point trying to be made.  


Terry


----------



## thinze3

Glenn Saunders said:


> ... he left and now heads up the new TDS Anabui fractional ownership project which costs over $100k just for entry into the program ...



YIKES!  Terrible timing for him. You better get out of town before he asks to move in with you. :hysterical: 



> ... By the way, for those of you from up north (even as far as *my home town of Dallas*) ...



Dallas! That makes you a Yankee too! 
Enjoy you vacation "further south".

Terry


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> So that is why you see me pan the responses by the board. They are not answering the hard questions.



I think if you go back to beginning of this thread, you will find your "hard" questions are a moving target. They have delivered two lengthy responses to your hard questions - one general in nature and one more specifically aimed at the questions you raised. Clearly this issue is consuming some portion of their limited time. Now you have a slightly different set of questions. Since you clearly have their attention, my recommendation is that you follow the same process, and ask them follow-ups to any new questions you have in the proper format. But do not belabor items they have answered or answers that you do not like. For instance:



marksue said:


> There is no resale value today for the Ocean Club. Why would you buy a unit at the Ocean club when you can pay almost the same price and save 500 in MF from the surf club?



Not really an issue the BOD can respond to. The BOD only indirectly influences the resale value of the OC, but providing good stewardship of the resources at hand.  They have no control on the economic situation in the US. Also see other threads regarding significant drops in resale prices of most MVCI properties.



marksue said:


> Yes the letter says this was a planned switching of power.  I can not reveal how I know but I do. Allan was forced out as president.  He was forced out the day prior to the owners meeting; he was caught completely off guard. You could see how uncomfortable he was presenting to the owners.  Frank wasn't even at the meeting.  Allan also had to let Marriott answer most of the questions.



So this statement from their response is inaccurate:

"During the January 2008 Board of Directors Meeting, the Board developed a succession plan to ensure a seamless transition from Mr. Cohen’s long and distinguished service to a new administration."

So at the Jan 2008 meeting, no succession plan was developed, and Mr. Cohen did not participate in the development of the plan. I think, the timing and mechanics of how the plan was executed is really not germane to the conversation unless you are Allan Cohen or a close relative.



marksue said:


> Why in the papers for a lawsuit they said the building was defective, but now they don't. I and others want to know why the discrepancy.



I really think they answered this in the section regarding the roof and in "Does the Board represent Owners or does it represent Marriott Vacation Club?". In the initial demand letter, they used strong language to characterize the building, as you will often do in such cases. It does not make that characterization a fact. Now after reflection and reviewing the engineers report, they have decided to pursue a different course of action, and have been successful in obtaining financial concessions from MVCI. In light of the uncertainity of legal proceedings this might be the prudent course of action, but can always be second-guessed. 



marksue said:


> Why was a board member not aware of this document, why is a board member not given access to the email sent to the board’s mailbox. Tells you that if you support the owners you are blocked and your opinion does not matter.



I think this is an internal board issue. I assume Allan would ask this question of the board. Since you and he are in communication, what answer did they give him? On a side note, having multiple people with access to a single mailbox raises it own set of challenges. And I why would every e-mail be provided to every Board member.



marksue said:


> Why has the board refused to share with owners the engineers report on the roof and building? There is a lot of info they do not want us to know



When was the request made and what response did they provide to the requestor?  If you have specific information on what is in the report to support your assertion that they are hiding information - then provide it.

Again, I will reiterate my point that you are viewing every response they provide as validation that they are MVCI "puppets". I do not think you are objectively viewing the responses they are providing.


----------



## marksue

You are entitled to you opinion.  thanks


----------



## marksue

To all the supporters, adversaries and those just passing through I want to wish you all a happy and healthy holiday season. Enjoy your time with family and friends. 


Mark


----------



## luvmypt

Merry Christmas everyone.


----------



## lovearuba

*Happy Holidays to you Mark*

Many thanks for keeping this alive.  Have wonderful holiday season.


----------



## Luckybee

misquoted to be replaced


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> So this statement from their response is inaccurate:
> 
> "During the January 2008 Board of Directors Meeting, the Board developed a succession plan to ensure a seamless transition from Mr. Cohen’s long and distinguished service to a new administration."
> 
> So at the Jan 2008 meeting, no succession plan was developed, and Mr. Cohen did not participate in the development of the plan. I think, the timing and mechanics of how the plan was executed is really not germane to the conversation unless you are Allan Cohen or a close relative.






Yes you are right, the statement from the board(better phrased as "part" of the board, and Marriott ) is not accurate. Pure and simple ! When the president doesnt know he's being ousted, I wouldnt say thats a plan . At least not one meant to "ensure a seamless transition". It is these kinds of mistatements that have led to the mistrust in the first place, and quite frankly why I personally have trouble with anything that faction of the board are saying. If someone says three things to me, and I know they arent being truthful about the first of the three, but I have little info about the other last two, I am likely to be skeptical about the last two, because after all they arent being honest about the first one. Same scenario here. Not once have those members of the board answered for why they handled his removal(and make no mistake it was a removal) in the manner in which they did, nor why they then placed a lockdown on info provided to the owners immediately afterwards. Trust me Im not him, nor am I a relative but I certainly think that this is very relevant to all of the owners. There is only one possible explanation for why this was done, and one only, and that is for the members to not get the info that he was providing. Yes that worries me alot.

On a more immediate note, Happy holidays to all


----------



## marksue

Very true lucky. And why all of a sudden do they not want to speak directlywith owners and why is Allan not allowed to see emails sent to the address they say to send email.  

Tells you something when a board member doesn't even know the board is sending out a letter.


----------



## timeos2

Luckybee said:


> Yes you are right, the statement from the board(better phrased as "part" of the board, and Marriott ) is not accurate. Pure and simple ! When the president doesnt know he's being ousted, I wouldnt say thats a plan . At least not one meant to "ensure a seamless transition". It is these kinds of mistatements that have led to the mistrust in the first place, and quite frankly why I personally have trouble with anything that faction of the board are saying. If someone says three things to me, and I know they arent being truthful about the first of the three, but I have little info about the other last two, I am likely to be skeptical about the last two, because after all they arent being honest about the first one. Same scenario here. Not once have those members of the board answered for why they handled his removal(and make no mistake it was a removal) in the manner in which they did, nor why they then placed a lockdown on info provided to the owners immediately afterwards. Trust me Im not him, nor am I a relative but I certainly think that this is very relevant to all of the owners. There is only one possible explanation for why this was done, and one only, and that is for the members to not get the info that he was providing. Yes that worries me alot.
> 
> On a more immediate note, Happy holidays to all



A Board member doesn't have to have a title to disseminate information. President or not he knows what is going on and can present his view. Even when President, unless he's releasing a Board approved message, he was speaking for himself.  Who is President has very little to no impact on owners.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Yes you are right, the statement from the board(better phrased as "part" of the board, and Marriott ) is not accurate.



I just want to understand this. You specifically know that there was not a plan developed in the Jan 2008 meeting. The board is lying about this fact.

Your response seems to focused on the timing of the plan rather then the fact that a plan was developed. I infer from MarkSue's previous post that Allan had no idea that the BOD had set a timetable for executing the plan - i.e. that they were going to do so prior to the meeting. 

But that is different then the fact that the BOD had developed a transition plan. 

More and more, those issues seem related to internal board politics. How and why the BOD president was replaced, and who has access to a board mailbox. That is a much different issue then a BOD that is not properly fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to the HOA. While you may use one issue to support your opinions on the other, it does not make a fact.

If you are correct - that no plan was previously discussed, and they are lying in their public disclosures, then I think you should throw them out on their ear on that issue alone. If they are in fact lying about the simple stuff, then they cannot be trusted to make the hard decisions on the tough issues your resort faces.


----------



## ecwinch

andrew11 said:


> I think better to speak with owner & deal this and I know that board members doesn't have a title to desseminate information.I don't think about
> President!!unless he's releasing a Board approved message !!



Please clarify your message - it is not clear.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> why is Allan not allowed to see emails sent to the address they say to send email.
> 
> Tells you something when a board member doesn't even know the board is sending out a letter.



One possible scenario is when you have a board member that is providing e-mail addresses to third-parties that were accumulated in his official capacity as a member of the BOD. Then you would definitely want to limit his access to the e-mail system to reduce his capability to accumulate additional addresses. This would only be a prudent thing to do, as to limit the potential exposure of the BOD for failing to safeguard the e-mail addresses of the members.

Just a thought.... or opinion.


----------



## marksue

EC, not sure what your goal is in here since you don't own at the Ocean Club, but you seem to chanllenge anyone who has something negative to say against Marriott or the board.  It is easy for an outsider to say the board is responding etc.  The owners know better. What the board is saying is the same thing Dirk and Troy, from Marriott, were saying at the board meeting.  The board hasn't even answered the questions the owners are asking.

Ocean Club owners know when they hear Marriott speaking.  So many owners have written and said this sounds just like Marriott speaking when they go tthe board letter.  When MVCI was talking to owners it is exactly what they said on the phone

Why does the board, who is pro MArriott, not allow,Allan who is pro owner, know that a letter is going out?


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> If you are correct - that no plan was previously discussed, and they are lying in their public disclosures, then I think you should throw them out on their ear on that issue alone. If they are in fact lying about the simple stuff, then they cannot be trusted to make the hard decisions on the tough issues your resort faces.



Now perhaps you understand


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> One possible scenario is when you have a board member that is providing e-mail addresses to third-parties that were accumulated in his official capacity as a member of the BOD. Then you would definitely want to limit his access to the e-mail system to reduce his capability to accumulate additional addresses. This would only be a prudent thing to do, as to limit the potential exposure of the BOD for failing to safeguard the e-mail addresses of the members.
> 
> Just a thought.... or opinion.



Only problem with your theory is that the board member in question had his access limited BEFORE this stuff started(in other words, before any members were being contacted by email ). So your reasoning wouldnt make sense under the circumstances....want to guess again?


----------



## dioxide45

marksue said:


> EC, not sure what your goal is in here since you don't own at the Ocean Club, but you seem to chanllenge anyone who has something negative to say against Marriott or the board.



If you don't want to hear opinions from everyone then this should be taken to a Yahoo group or something that can be limited to only owners at OC. You post in an open forum that is open to even non TS owners, you will get many responses, many you like and others you don't. You always seem to challenge anyone who has something good to say about Marriott.:ignore:


----------



## marksue

I have no porblem with anyone posting.  I challenge people who don't understand what is happening at the Ocean CLub and the anger of so many owners.  Its ok to question, but when you don't know the facts of what has occured at the OC, and understand how we have lost transparency and how Marriott is actually controlling our board, not sure you can question what people are saying.  When myself and other owners explain what the issues are and what has occured at teh Ocean CLub, and you say it is not true that is the issue I have.  We have lived it for months.


----------



## Eric

Mark,

First off let me address the fact that people have said you should run for the HOA. In my opinion you would be terrible, no offense. Your diplomacy stinks and you accusations at Marriott would have you looking for a new managing partner quickly. That said, I don't think anyone is happy about the big increases but your bull in a china shop attitude will get you no where. I will bet money on that !!  You can change HOA members all you want but Marriott’s stance will not change IMHO. Most of the changes have been explained. Replacing a roof after 14 years and saying it was defect day 1 makes no sense. A judge would tell you, how bad was the roof if it lasted 14 years ? The fact that you don't want the updates now is great but you don't speak for the HOA. I like a good fight as good as the next person but you will probably cause more harm than good when all is said and done. 





marksue said:


> EC, not sure what your goal is in here since you don't own at the Ocean Club, but you seem to chanllenge anyone who has something negative to say against Marriott or the board.  It is easy for an outsider to say the board is responding etc.  The owners know better. What the board is saying is the same thing Dirk and Troy, from Marriott, were saying at the board meeting.  The board hasn't even answered the questions the owners are asking.
> 
> Ocean Club owners know when they hear Marriott speaking.  So many owners have written and said this sounds just like Marriott speaking when they go tthe board letter.  When MVCI was talking to owners it is exactly what they said on the phone
> 
> Why does the board, who is pro MArriott, not allow,Allan who is pro owner, know that a letter is going out?


----------



## marksue

LIke i said if you are not an owner you don't understand what is going on at the ocean club.  It is not just a roof we are talking about.  Eric, I really don't care what you think about my diplomacy, I don't need or want your approval.  I will keep my comments to myself cause I know if I wrote what I wanted the message would be deleted, hows that for diplomacy.  

Say what you like I will continue what I am doing, say what I am saying and continue this fight as long as it takes.  We the owners want and deserve transparency. Marriott needs to come clean on what they know about the building.  If they are so sure there was no problem, let Marriott release the engineering report they had done. They won't cause it would prove what is being said here.


----------



## Eric

I realize maybe I don't have the super top secret info you have but to most people its pretty clear. Don't worry, saying bad words to me are not that scary so I am sure I could handle it ! LOL
As far as reports and anything else you want, as soon as they did, you would say they are doctored so what's the point. My suggestion would be sell your units because you are spinning your wheels. 






marksue said:


> LIke i said if you are not an owner you don't understand what is going on at the ocean club.  It is not just a roof we are talking about.  Eric, I really don't care what you think about my diplomacy, I don't need or want your approval.  I will keep my comments to myself cause I know if I wrote what I wanted the message would be deleted, hows that for diplomacy.
> 
> Say what you like I will continue what I am doing, say what I am saying and continue this fight as long as it takes.  We the owners want and deserve transparency. Marriott needs to come clean on what they know about the building.  If they are so sure there was no problem, let Marriott release the engineering report they had done. They won't cause it would prove what is being said here.


----------



## Dave M

marksue said:


> ....Marriott is actually controlling our board....


There is no way that Marriott can control Board decisions unless Marriott has the majority of Board members. They certainly didn't control the Board when the Board threatened to sue Marriott earlier this year. Even you seem to contradict that quoted statement by conceding that the Board (except for Allen) is acting like you believe Marriott would ("pro Marriott").

However, you can safely bet every last dollar that you have that some high-paid attorneys, probably Marriott's attorneys, are making strong recommendations to the Board that they carefully limit what they say in communications to owners. You can probably thank yourself for that. Any time someone publicly threatens legal action against a Board, as you have threatened, those who might become defendants (and that includes all Board members) must carefully consider the words that they disseminate out of concern that such words might get misinterpreted and come back to haunt them in a courtroom.

And the answer to your oft repeated question about why Allen is being left out of the loop is in my previous paragraph and in your own statements. He is trying to do things that are counter to decisions the Board has made. Thus, you can bet that legal counsel has authorized the Board to leave him out of the loop. He can challenge that decision in court if he wishes, but he has an uphill battle. No one can order the Board to make him an outcast. The Board did that themselves.

You have received some excellent advice in this thread. And a fair number of non-owners who understand some of the legal issues you are dealing with and the science of effective communication have given such advice. But it's apparent that you believe any non-owner is incapable of providing any useful advice. You seem to refuse to believe that there is any way to get what you want to accomplish other than bad-mouthing both Marriott and the Board at every opportunity. I believe that's too bad - for you and for the owners for whom you could provide a very useful service.


----------



## Retired to Travel

Dave deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for moderating this thread.  Seriously, thank you, Dave, for treading the fine line.  You know my privately expressed opinion.


----------



## marksue

I have heard what people have said, and I have followed some of the advice, but at the same time Marriott wants me and others to be quite and go away. We wont., and if attacking MVCI is what I need to do I will continue until the owners get what is righfully thiers.

The board has continued refused to give all the facts to the owners, the board has called the building defective and now says it isnt defective.  They have yet to responded to any owner as to why they no longer think the building is defective.  There are documents out there that prove that the extended exposure to the environment and failure to correct roof leak problems, has caused building issues.


They have stated Marriott has not paid thier fair share for the common space and the revenue from the stores.  That issues has yet to be resolved, yet the board no longer talks about it.

Long before this thread started, this issue was being dealt with by me and others diplomatically with Marriott.  They wanted nothing to do with it and basically said it is what it is and nothing is going to change.  So thsi thread was born.


----------



## marksue

Eric, you want to buy my units, they are for sale.  If I could sell them I would.  I have been trying to sell for months, but there is no market for them.


----------



## Eric

no thanks. I hear there may be a lawsuit pending that will cost the HOA more money and raise owner costs even higher. 





marksue said:


> Eric, you want to buy my units, they are for sale.  If I could sell them I would.  I have been trying to sell for months, but there is no market for them.


----------



## jimf41

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


----------



## billymach4

I for one find this thread very educating. Nobody is compelled to continue to read. Why close this thread? Obviously this issue has really hit a raw nerve on both sides of the issue. Please do not close.


----------



## lovearuba

*change is not easy*

Marksue is working hard to keep owners aware of what is happening.  I am not surprised there is a lot of razzing going on because folks are uncomfortable that their cherished Marriott is taking some heat.  You can defend Marriott.  If you don't own at the ocean club and you are not paying these fees and paying some of them for a building that leaks like a sieve when it rains then you may not be able to appreciate the situation.  The leaking started before many of us bought the place.  It really should have been fixed by Marriott, that would have taken one of the most important trust issues off the table.

A lot of folks are suggesting the thread be closed.  I think you may be afraid that your timeshares that have Marriott names will be less valuable if people come to this site and see what happened to ocean club owners.  Your values are going down and will continue because of the economy alone.  Marriott Owners do have a right to know and we are using this thread to keep the message alive.  Regardless of what you may think there are plenty of folks that appreciate the thread.  Some folks actually see humor in the situation.  That is unfortunate.  I would have a hard time seeing humor in a situation as sad as this.


----------



## Eric

Really ? that's what you see going on here ? You have a completly different take than Dave. I wonder which person, people tend to think makes the most sense ?





lovearuba said:


> Marksue is working hard to keep owners aware of what is happening.  I am not surprised there is a lot of razzing going on because folks are uncomfortable that their cherished Marriott is taking some heat.  You can defend Marriott.  If you don't own at the ocean club and you are not paying these fees and paying some of them for a building that leaks like a sieve when it rains then you may not be able to appreciate the situation.  The leaking started before many of us bought the place.  It really should have been fixed by Marriott, that would have taken one of the most important trust issues off the table.
> 
> A lot of folks are suggesting the thread be closed.  I think you may be afraid that your timeshares that have Marriott names will be less valuable if people come to this site and see what happened to ocean club owners.  Your values are going down and will continue because of the economy alone.  Marriott Owners do have a right to know and we are using this thread to keep the message alive.  Regardless of what you may think there are plenty of folks that appreciate the thread.  Some folks actually see humor in the situation.  That is unfortunate.  I would have a hard time seeing humor in a situation as sad as this.


----------



## Eric

!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Zac495

I trust Dave. He's wise. 
I think Marksue is trying to help - I have no idea if it will help or not help. I'm a clueless second grade teacher.

I do wonder why Eric hates Marksue - that's the way it seems to me, Eric.
Dave is very diplomatic in disagreeing with Marksue - his posts and Marksue's interest me. Marksue has OC members' interests (and his own) at heart - right or wrong. 

Dave is a sweetie who disagrees with Marksue and makes his points without being unpleasant.

Eric seems to want to show that Marksue is wrong in a mean way.

This is Ellen the teacher wanting everyone to disagree in an agreeable way.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Diplomacy.*




Zac495 said:


> This is Ellen the teacher wanting everyone to disagree in an agreeable way.


Diplomacy has been defined as the art of telling people to go to hell in such a nice way that they look forward to the trip. 

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


----------



## Dave M

lovearuba said:


> A lot of folks are suggesting the thread be closed.


Most other threads on this BBS that include the type of bickering that has transpired in this thread would have been closed long before now. However, the issues that have been raised in this thread deserve discussion, as long as the discussion is civil. 

I have had to edit and delete more posts in this thread than in any other, but I will close it only if absolutely necessary. The previous warnings I have given should be clear. 





> I am not surprised there is a lot of razzing going on because folks are uncomfortable that their cherished Marriott is taking some heat.


I don't see it that way at all. I believe all of the naysayers have concerns that the owners who are most vocal here about the issues may be more passionate than realistic about how to accomplish what they want and how much they can accomplish.

I'm definitely pro-Marriott. But Marriott isn't perfect. No company is. And if (emphasizing the "if") Marriott has made a mistake in this situation, that mistake should be corrected.


----------



## Eric

First of all, lets get out of character. I have nothing against Mark and in fact can understand his anger. I just think, as I have stated many times, the way he is handling this is counter productive and doomed to failure. At a minimum, he should learn from Dave's approach as it would be far more successful. 





Zac495 said:


> I trust Dave. He's wise.
> I think Marksue is trying to help - I have no idea if it will help or not help. I'm a clueless second grade teacher.
> 
> I do wonder why Eric hates Marksue - that's the way it seems to me, Eric.
> Dave is very diplomatic in disagreeing with Marksue - his posts and Marksue's interest me. Marksue has OC members' interests (and his own) at heart - right or wrong.
> 
> Dave is a sweetie who disagrees with Marksue and makes his points without being unpleasant.
> 
> Eric seems to want to show that Marksue is wrong in a mean way.
> 
> This is Ellen the teacher wanting everyone to disagree in an agreeable way.


----------



## marksue

This thread has gotten to the point where I feel I always have to defend what I say and do.  I keep trying to get back to the issues but am always being attacked for what I am saying. That is the part of any thread.  I can tell you I have had many emails from people here who support what is going on and a couple who do not support it, and I respect thier views.

As I stated earlier, I have tried the diplomatic approach with Marriott prior to starting this thread. I had calls in to Marriott starting back in the June timeframe. 

Yes our fees have gone up, more than most if not all other Marriott TS.  The issue is not the fee but what has occurred that has caused the higher fees and assessments.  If those issues are addressed then our increase and assessments would be minimized.  The Surf Club increase is clearly defined.  I own at the Surf Club and fully understand that increase, it is also only a 12% increase VS 35% from the OC.  

All we the owners want is honest answers from Marriott and the Board, which they have yet to deliver.  I have information that backs my point, but I am not able to reveal here at this time.  The board talked about things that they did that support the information I have, yet they refuse to reveal it.

I would love to have a handful of owners, and it doesn’t have to be me, sit with the board and Marriott to openly share all the documentation regarding the building, the costs over time to repair the building, the financials surrounding the rental space at the OC as well as the sales desk at the OC.  If that occurs this thread would be closed fairly quickly because I do believe all information would be out in the open, and I believe owners would get some form of reimbursement (like I said I have information that can not be revealed).  


Eric then we can go grab a drink .


----------



## timeos2

*This one is on target*



marksue said:


> All we the owners want is honest answers from Marriott and the Board, which they have yet to deliver.  I have information that backs my point, but I am not able to reveal here at this time.  The board talked about things that they did that support the information I have, yet they refuse to reveal it.
> 
> I would love to have a handful of owners, and it doesn’t have to be me, sit with the board and Marriott to openly share all the documentation regarding the building, the costs over time to repair the building, the financials surrounding the rental space at the OC as well as the sales desk at the OC.  If that occurs this thread would be closed fairly quickly because I do believe all information would be out in the open, and I believe owners would get some form of reimbursement (like I said I have information that can not be revealed).
> 
> 
> Eric then we can go grab a drink .



If this tone continues then this thread could live quite awhile longer and end up being very productive. Don't ever be afraid to be active at your resort(s) or to ask tough questions.   My best wishes for a good outcome to all owners at OC.  Happy New Year and many years of great vacations!


----------



## Dave M

marksue said:


> I would love to have a handful of owners, and it doesn’t have to be me, sit with the board and Marriott to openly share all the documentation regarding the building, the costs over time to repair the building, the financials surrounding the rental space at the OC as well as the sales desk at the OC.


That would be nice. However, it's a sure bet that it won't happen. There is too much risk to the Board that you and others would decide that the information wasn't good enough to satisfy you and that you would use that information to sue the Board. You can say that wouldn't happen, but there is no way at this point to take back your constant threats of legal action, starting with your very first post on this forum. 

Had you started this thread by stating that all you wanted was information so that you could understand the reasons for the various Board actions and that you were seeking support from other owners to find a way to force that to happen, it might have happened. Maybe, maybe not.

Too late now.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Hard To Un-Ring The Bell.*




Dave M said:


> Too late now.


I think that's right. 

Yet it's easy to understand why somebody so seriously aggrieved would come on strong. 

I also think there's a certain something about timeshares that just happens to bring out the inner litigator lurking inside many if not most of us. 

When it comes to going to court over timeshare disputes, however, the essential question is still _How Much Justice Can You Afford ?_ 

Unfortunately, there may be timeshare companies out there which deliberately stick it to the owners, knowing full well that we won't run up $10*,*000 in attorney fees & court costs over a $5*,*000 timeshare just to prove we're right. 

So it goes. 

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


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> EC, not sure what your goal is in here since you don't own at the Ocean Club, but you seem to chanllenge anyone who has something negative to say against Marriott or the board.  It is easy for an outsider to say the board is responding etc.



My goal is offer a counter-point to the interpretation of events that you offer to add some balance to the discussion. 

For me, too much of what you post here falls in the category of “I have information I cannot reveal” or unverifiable information from third-parties who do not post here. I think there has to be some portion of what you post that is correct, but without unbiased verification, I have trouble accepting it at face value. Something does not become a fact just because you believe it to be true.

You are taking to current board to task for a lack of transparency and for being unwilling to answer the "hard" questions. But you have demonstrated a similar inclination. When faced with "hard" questions, you attempt to marginalize the person asking the question due to their standing (non-owner, Marriott employee, bogus e-mail address,etc) or hide behind "I have information I cannot reveal".

And I bear no ill will to anyone that has posted here. I simply want a balanced presentation of the facts so people can reach their own conclusions.  Let me know when you and Eric have that drink, and I will gladly  pay the bill.


----------



## marksue

I do have information that can not be revealed in this thread that supports what I have been saying.  I am more than willing to share it with the board, but I am sure the board has seen it already.  But on the other hand the board is not open to sharing thier information with the owners. Send me an email with your phone number and I will gladly share it with you over a conversation.

I have already shared this information with other owners who have contacted me.


----------



## timeos2

*There is a bottom line and it isn't 100% back in most cases*



marksue said:


> I do have information that can not be revealed in this thread that supports what I have been saying.  I am more than willing to share it with the board, but I am sure the board has seen it already.  But on the other hand the board is not open to sharing thier information with the owners. Send me an email with your phone number and I will gladly share it with you over a conversation.
> 
> I have already shared this information with other owners who have contacted me.



Unfortunately if that is the type hinted at here - that 14 or 15 years ago there was a roof leak or a window that wasn't sealed, etc- that isn't going to cut it in any court as has been previously noted. The clock starts running on construction defects and other issues and doesn't go on forever. If the Board sitting at that time accepted the building and/or repairs as complete then there is little chance it will be successfully revisited now. That's why the 48% payment deal this Board has worked out may not be as bad as you seem to believe.   14 years of use is a LONG time in the construction/building/warranty world.  I only wish we had been able to get 48% of our $3.5 million dollar replacement of incorrectly designed and installed roofs paid for at our resort. And we (as well as our sister resort next door that was newer and also had the same problems) DID go through the legal process only to find out we would get nothing if we proceeded to throw legal fees at the effort.  It appears your Board has done a great job of getting something that could have easily been (or still be) nothing from a management that felt an obligation to the project. They don't all do that (or have the money to give).  Take what you can is often the best answer.


----------



## billymach4

*What Jurisdiction does this issue fall under?*

Since all of this is taking place in a property in Aruba, by a corporate entity managed in the US, and from owners literally the world over....

Where do you take this issue to be settled in court if it ever comes to being a legal proceeding? 

Aruba? The US? Dutch Courts?


----------



## dioxide45

billymach4 said:


> Since all of this is taking place in a property in Aruba, by a corporate entity managed in the US, and from owners literally the world over....
> 
> Where do you take this issue to be settled in court if it ever comes to being a legal proceeding?
> 
> Aruba? The US? Dutch Courts?



I believe Marriott has a seperate entity that operates in Aruba. So it would be litigated under the Aruba laws.


----------



## Dave M

dioxide45 said:


> I believe Marriott has a seperate entity that operates in Aruba.


You are correct - Marriott Resorts Hospitality of Aruba, N.V. (MRHA).


----------



## Zac495

ecwinch said:


> My goal is offer a counter-point to the interpretation of events that you offer to add some balance to the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> And I bear no ill will to anyone that has posted here. I simply want a balanced presentation of the facts so people can reach their own conclusions.  Let me know when you and Eric have that drink, and I will gladly  pay the bill.



Can I come?


----------



## modoaruba

*Aruban law*

If indeed Aruba is the place for litigation consider:

A country that has a red light district.
Advertises prostitution in their papers.
Legalized gambling.

I'm not complaining since I do frequent the casinos(not the former).

The protection that the corporations have under such conditions is enormous.
This is not the USA.

Aruba will not bite the hands that feed it. And vice versa.

Think  of DIPLOMACY which was well put by a prior post.

I hate to be right but I do not think I am wrong.


----------



## marksue

If EC is paying everyone is invited.

To file a class action to get Marriott to cover costs has to be done by the board in Aruba.  Now based on how MVCI operates you could certainly make a point on filing in the US as thier is enough of a discrepency in some of thier business practices where they represent themselves as MVCI and not MVCI Aruba. 

As I have said a lawsuit is the last thing anyone wants to do, yes including me.  But anytime anyone goes into a negotiation or battle you always know a lawsuit is a remote possibility.  

I am not advocating a lawsuit, so Eric and EC don't say I am .  Have I investigated if we have no other choice, yes I have because I needed to know what we would have to do.  Before you say how much would it cost.  It would be done on a contingency basis with no cost to any owner.  I AM JUST GIVING THE FACTS HERE SO LETS NOT GET ON RAMPAGE I AM ADVOCATING A LAWSUIT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I AM NOT. I JUST WANT TO SHARE WHAT I HAVE UNCOVERED IN CONVERSATIONS WITH LAWYERS. 

SO i am just sharing what I know at this time.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*What Is The Sound Of A Bell Un-Ringing ?*

12-28-2008 *. . .*


marksue said:


> SO i am just sharing what I know at this time.


12-27-2008 * . . . *


marksue said:


> I do have information that can not be revealed in this thread that supports what I have been saying.


Not all that easy getting the toothpaste back inside the tube. 

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


----------



## Dave M

marksue said:


> I am not advocating a lawsuit....


Huh? 

From your very first post in this thread, a theme that has frequently been one of your primary threats here:





> Let me know if you are interested in pursuing a class action suit against Marriott.


No matter how much you try, you can't take that back.


----------



## marksue

And as I have always been saying, it is not what any of us want. But action fo last resort.  I have said that over and over.  SO I ahvent been taking anything back.


----------



## Dave M

marksue said:


> And as I have always been saying, it is not what any of us want. But action fo last resort.  I have said that over and over.  SO I ahvent been taking anything back.


I just don't believe that's true. Nowhere in your first posts on this forum in the early part of October did you suggest that a lawsuit would be a "last resort" or anything other than your primary focus.


----------



## marksue

Dave you will pick out what you want. I have been saying for the longest time that a lawsuit was the action of last resort.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*You're Kidding, Right ?*




marksue said:


> Dave you will pick out what you want. I have been saying for the longest time that a lawsuit was the action of last resort.


What do you mean _Pick Out What You Want_ ? 

The bottom line in Entry 1 on Day 1 was an invitation for folks to let you know if they're interested in pursuing a class action lawsuit. 

You could look it up. 

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


----------



## marksue

And read the rest of my posts as time went on. You can say what you want I know what I have posted so slam me all you want.  Why not post the times I said it is the last resort. Of course you won't. 

Last I will say about this I have made myself quite clear. 

I will stick to the topocs I posted before this ridiculous tangent.


----------



## Dave M

No one has suggested that you didn't eventually say that a lawsuit is a last resort. You did. However, that's much different than the mistatement you made earlier today...





> And as I have always been saying, it is not what any of us want. But action fo last resort.


 Being straightforward with the people you hope will join your cause is just as important for you to do as it is for the Board. It takes a tall man to admit having made a mistake.


----------



## lovearuba

*pick on mark day*

Sounds like pick on Mark day.  Can we stop accusing folks and stick to the issues orignally raised and whether or not people still feel additional steps will help our cause.


----------



## Eric

Its still amazes me at how hard of a time you are having, grasping what people are posting. There was no accusations, they are just reminding Mark what his original intent of the thread was. He was looking for people to join in on a lawsuit. Do you want a cut n paste to refresh your memory ? 

here it is::

Let me know if you are interested in pursuing a class action suit against Marriott.



Mark






lovearuba said:


> Sounds like pick on Mark day.  Can we stop accusing folks and stick to the issues orignally raised and whether or not people still feel additional steps will help our cause.


----------



## arubafan1

I got the link to this site from an email.  Being an owner I have been reading all these posts with a great deal of interest.  It is quite obvious to me there is a group of owners who have strong feelings about the Ocean Club problems.  Being an owner as well, I am not happy about this high increase and assessments.  I have been aware of many of the problems mentioned and had called Marriott on numerous occasions. I am hoping something can be worked out to reduce the amount I am going to have to pay out.  I have written to the board and not yet received any responses from them.

I also see a people like Eric and Dave being quite negative and antagonistic to the owners who post here.  This battle regarding law suits, and who says what, is so stupid.  I have read what marksue has said and yes his initial email talks about a lawsuit, but his statement prior to that line talks about getting enough owners to contact customer care and maybe if enough people speak up Marriott will do the right think.  I also noticed throughout his posts where he did say he didn’t want a lawsuit but it was the last thing anyone wanted. Why what he initially stated means anything when he has been clear since that.  I would look at the messages throughout and he is saying he would prefer to not have a lawsuit.

My personal opinion is that Eric, Dave and others have their own personal agenda to discredit this effort and the owners who are posting here.  I personally think the owners who are posting here have more credibility then the non-owners.  The owners are living this nightmare and I do not believe you non-owners really get it.


----------



## dioxide45

What is trying to be pointed out is that once you make the threat of a lawsuit you really can't go back on that. You will have a hard time getting anyone on the other side to work with you to resolve issues. You can say you have gone back on that as much as you want but the threat is still there.


----------



## Eric

Most negative things had to do with "THE WAY" it was being handled and some less than real world solutions. Nobody wants to see the fees stay that high if it can be helped. For the record, you don't have to actually own Ocean Club to understand it, I swear. 





arubafan1 said:


> I got the link to this site from an email.  Being an owner I have been reading all these posts with a great deal of interest.  It is quite obvious to me there is a group of owners who have strong feelings about the Ocean Club problems.  Being an owner as well, I am not happy about this high increase and assessments.  I have been aware of many of the problems mentioned and had called Marriott on numerous occasions. I am hoping something can be worked out to reduce the amount I am going to have to pay out.  I have written to the board and not yet received any responses from them.
> 
> I also see a people like Eric and Dave being quite negative and antagonistic to the owners who post here.  This battle regarding law suits, and who says what, is so stupid.  I have read what marksue has said and yes his initial email talks about a lawsuit, but his statement prior to that line talks about getting enough owners to contact customer care and maybe if enough people speak up Marriott will do the right think.  I also noticed throughout his posts where he did say he didn’t want a lawsuit but it was the last thing anyone wanted. Why what he initially stated means anything when he has been clear since that.  I would look at the messages throughout and he is saying he would prefer to not have a lawsuit.
> 
> My personal opinion is that Eric, Dave and others have their own personal agenda to discredit this effort and the owners who are posting here.  I personally think the owners who are posting here have more credibility then the non-owners.  The owners are living this nightmare and I do not believe you non-owners really get it.


----------



## m61376

What is going on at the Ocean Club affects every Marriott owner, at least potentially, because setting a precedent is a hard thing to undo. I think that's why this thread has generated so much interest in part.

That said, I don't think Dave's comments were meant as attacks or to further a personal agenda; in his usual fashion, he was trying to instill a sense of diplomacy. Anger and frustration can lend itself to being like a bull in a china shop, and nothing good comes out of it. While the thought of a lawsuit being necessary down the road might have been in the back of a lot of minds, verbalizing it has effectively made Marriott close its ranks, so to speak, and it may be much more difficult going forward than if that threat was never aired.

I, as well as many others here, give Mark a lot of credit for trying to get something done, but I hope he hasn't injured his cause by taking such an animus position. As posted above, once a lawsuit is threatened, the threat can't be taken back and people (in this case the Marriott reps and the Board) will likely act accordingly.


----------



## Dave M

arubafan1 said:


> I got the link to this site from an email.


I think there is a new low in this thread. "arubafan1" and Mark ("marksue") post from the same computer. No one else other than Mark has posted from the same computer as arubafan1. 

I'll let readers draw their own conclusions.


----------



## Eric

Mark,

You credibility went from bad to worse. If I did own at Ocean Club, I would not want you to represent me in any way , shape of form. As far as I am concerned, you have hurt the Ocean Club owners case. 






Dave M said:


> I think there is a new low in this thread. "arubafan1" and Mark ("marksue") post from the same computer. No one else other than Mark has posted from the same computer as arubafan1.
> 
> I'll let readers draw their own conclusions.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*That Eases My Guilty Conscience A Bit.*




Dave M said:


> I'll let readers draw their own conclusions.


_Whoa !_ 

My conscience was beating me up for wondering whether those 2 might be 1 & the same. 

Of course, I have no way to know who's sending in stuff from what computers, so I wrote off my suspicion as 1 more manifestation of the defects in my own character. 

So in a tiny & semi-insignificant way, it's a relief to know that possibly my unworthy thoughts weren't so unworthy after all. 

A TUG-BBS sock puppet -- who'd a-thunk ? 

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


----------



## Luckybee

Dave M said:


> No one has suggested that you didn't eventually say that a lawsuit is a last resort. You did. However, that's much different than the mistatement you made earlier today... Being straightforward with the people you hope will join your cause is just as important for you to do as it is for the Board. It takes a tall man to admit having made a mistake.



Perceptions are an amazing thing. It was abundantly clear to me and I expect to most "owners" that the "lawsuit" Mark was discussing was the last resort. But lets talk about what we do know.

1. For a lenghty period of time the board had been in discussions with Marriott about what the board felt were some significant concerns surrounding the Ocean Club including roof, windows, use of space etc. etc., as evidenced by the material that "used to be" on the web site.
2 All owners were able to have any info available to the board provided to them by the board and everyone was living happily ever after. Questions posed were always responded to.
3 The board had made a motion to continue the presidents tenure on the board
4 The discussions suddenly ceased
5 The president was removed without any prior knowledge to him. Prior motions were withdrawn
6 The maintenance fees went up significantly
7 An information lockdown took place..the board wouldnt answer questions posed both by pnhone and in writing, all info was removed from website, the new president refused to attend the meeting(very unusual). The new president and board would not answer any questions about anything and directed all enquiries to the general manager who still, as of 4 days ago is giving out contradictory info
8 The "new" board seems to take the position that they represent Marriott   
9 AFTER all this happened Mark began "rallying the troops" to try to accomplish something

The chronology here is important. Many non owners who were not aware of exactly what went on here seem to be implying that the board was reacting to Marks comments and not providing info because of them. I'd venture a guess that had the board not acted in the manner in which they did Mark would have had no comments to make. But for Mark threatenting a lawsuit, and/or threatening to get the 10% of votes needed to call the meeting the board would simply still be ignoring owners. By the time he came on Tug and made the comments he made the damage was already done. The actions of the board were pretty transparent by then. Many of the "owners" are grateful that he took the steps he has taken. 

What does amaze me is that many of the non owners seem to find the boards actions here acceptable. Then again I guess there were those who thought what happened at Enron was okay too.


----------



## Eric

[_Edited to delete unsupported accusation that runs afoul of the "Be Courteous" posting rule._ Dave M, BBS Moderator]


----------



## Dave M

I should modify my above comment to:





> "arubafan1" and Mark ("marksue") appear to post from the same computer.


 Like DNA evidence, there is, in this case, a slim chance that they aren't posting from the same computer. However, of the more than 31,000 BBS registrants, they are the only two who have posted from the I.P. address used by arubafan1.


----------



## timeos2

*Pay attention as to why*



Luckybee said:


> 1. For a lenghty period of time the board had been in discussions with Marriott about what the board felt were some significant concerns surrounding the Ocean Club including roof, windows, use of space etc. etc., as evidenced by the material that "used to be" on the web site.



You skipped the part where an INDEPENDENT outside engineering firm was done and, apparently after review of that professional document (s?), the majority of the Board decided that the offer by Marriott was fair.  That is how an informed Board - not shooting from the hip or actions based on guesses - should do things. Get outside advice, weigh the options and move ahead. Sounds perfect to me and if I were an owner that would be the process I would want to know occurred. Does the Board have to release those studies? No, but it would be nice if they made it available to any owner who wanted to sit down and look at them.  They certainly don't have to publicize it as it would be an internal document.  

As repeatedly stated the answer may not be the one desired but that doesn't mean its wrong or somehow tainted.  It may be the most reasonable and result in a cost to owners as most repairs/maintenance/upgrades will. Nothing is free and the Board is the group charged with operating and maintaining the resort as your representatives. By all means let them know your opinions but threats carry less than no weight and are usaully counterproductive.  This whole appraoch started with the ultimate threat (since toned down but the bell already rang...)


----------



## jm2020

Mark,
I have not been able to read all the posts listed for the AOC. However, for those I have read, I have not seen any reference to another major issue facing the Owners.

Due to the leaky roof, which has been leaking for some 10 plus years, a mold and mildew incursion exists in the Ocean Club property. Mold and mildew  constitutes a health hazard which could be of great proportion to all occupants but particularly to those more sensitive to such polluting factors. Obviously, ill-health could be a result, and even worse. Mold and mildew are insidious by nature.

In addition, due to the incursion of water, the internal steel structure has rusted and affected to some undetermined degree of integrity.

I chose to advise you of this in the TUG format as opposed to a private Email in order to make this information known to a wider, and possibily concerned or even affected, audience.

This is probably another issue the AOC Board and Marriott management wishes to remain contained.


----------



## lovearuba

*Question for Dave*

Do you check all postings to see if this was done or is it just ones where you feel Mark wrote it?  Sounds bias to me


----------



## Dave M

lovearuba -

It was not a witch hunt of any kind. I received several Private Messages with accusations. So I did the I.P. search. It wouldn't have occurred to me to consider doing that. Based on what I found and posted above, I have searched I.P. addresses for every poster in this thread - both owners and nonowners - who registered for the BBS after the date this thread was started. I found no other indications of posts from one I.P. address by multiple user names.

Those who have followed all of my posts in this thread will recall that I am neutral regarding the overall issue. I'm not an owner at Ocean Club, but I have stated repeatedly that I believe the issues raised in this thread seem legitimate and should be resolved. 

I have edited and deleted inappropriate posts by both owners and by those who believe that something is wrong with the approach that has been taken here (i.e., on both "sides" that have been taken here). I have called some "opponents" to task for a lack of understanding or accuracy (e.g. challenges to Mark's accurate description of how to call a special meeting for the purpose of considering the recall of one or more directors).

Although I have challenged some owners in this thread on various specifics, not about the validity of the issues, that in no way signals that I am an opponent of the effort. To the contrary, I hope a way can be found to resolve these big issues in a manner that makes everyone somewhat - but not hugely - unhappy. That's what a compromise generally does.


----------



## Luckybee

timeos2 said:


> You skipped the part where an INDEPENDENT outside engineering firm was done and, apparently after review of that professional document (s?), the majority of the Board decided that the offer by Marriott was fair.  That is how an informed Board - not shooting from the hip or actions based on guesses - should do things. Get outside advice, weigh the options and move ahead. Sounds perfect to me and if I were an owner that would be the process I would want to know occurred. Does the Board have to release those studies? No, but it would be nice if they made it available to any owner who wanted to sit down and look at them.  They certainly don't have to publicize it as it would be an internal document.
> 
> As repeatedly stated the answer may not be the one desired but that doesn't mean its wrong or somehow tainted.  It may be the most reasonable and result in a cost to owners as most repairs/maintenance/upgrades will. Nothing is free and the Board is the group charged with operating and maintaining the resort as your representatives. By all means let them know your opinions but threats carry less than no weight and are usaully counterproductive.  This whole appraoch started with the ultimate threat (since toned down but the bell already rang...)



I didnt skip that part at all....more questions arose as a result of that report...are you truly aware of the contents of that report, and the others? I dont think it serves us(the owners) well to get into the specifics here so I wont, but perhaps before you refer to something you should be sure of what your referring to.

I also disagree with you in regards to your last sentence. The whole approach started not with the "ultimate threat" but rather with the "board" refusing to be accountable to owners, and rather being concerned only with Marriott. That was the point of my last post. The chronolgy here is very important and should not be overlooked, although I see that the Marriott apologists wish to do just that. IT was AFTER everything happened that Mark began his fight. Im sure it would be easier for the Marriott cheerleaders to believe otherwise(I used to be one of those btw). I am firmly convinced that if Mark had not raised the issues in the manner in which he did, the owners would still be ignored. I am also truly saddened by what has gone on here because my faith in Marriott no longer exsists. Dh and I were debating between a condo and a significant number of other weeks for retirement purposes. Although the costs are much higher, given what we have seen here it has become a no brainer for us. I had 2 friends who were going on a freinds share promo(not to the OC but other Marriott properties), 1 of whom has cancelled outright, another of whom I have told not to purchase under any circumstances. Another friend was lookin at resales having been to the property twice. I have strongly suggested they not purchase at this time and they are taking my advice. This doesnt make me happy, but having talked up the property for years to friends and colleagues I owe them honesty and I would have a difficult time living with myself if they were to buy given what I now know to be true. I used to say that Marriott was different than the timeshares that have the "reputation". Sadly I dont feel that way any longer.

I for one am certainly grateful that Mark decided to fight the fight. Everyone else(myself included) probably would have been far too apathetic and simply let the stuff go. That is unfortunate because as I said before , this is how unscrupulous activity never gets brought into the light.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*How Can You Say That ?*




Luckybee said:


> The whole approach started not with the "ultimate threat" but rather with the "board" refusing to be accountable to owners, and rather being concerned only with Marriott.


The bottom line, literally, in the original entry that got this ball rolling was an invitation for people to let the originator know if they're interested in pursuing a class action lawsuit. 

The soft-pedaling & diplomacy & sharing of information -- such as they were -- came later. 

You could look it up. 

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


----------



## iamnotshopgirl

Hey Dave

Time to put this thread to bed! You got both sides of the story. Does not matter what side your on enough is enough. Twenty pages of this topic. What had to be said was said. I'm not an owner. I'm not reading the posts for information now...I'm reading it for the snipes and other sarcasims. I don't think (respectfully) that you can be neutral in this scituation even though you (Dave) have tried to be IMHO. Let it run it's course...get your lawyers and file the law suit...then you'll get your decision. Your not going to get one in this thread.

bob


----------



## Luckybee

AwayWeGo said:


> The bottom line, literally, in the original entry that got this ball rolling was an invitation for people to let the originator know if they're interested in pursuing a class action lawsuit.
> 
> The soft-pedaling & diplomacy & sharing of information -- such as they were -- came later.
> 
> You could look it up.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​




You are assuming that the world revolves around TUG. Things happened before TUG was involved. The "board" took various steps. As a result of what happened after as I indicated in the earlier post Mark and others tried to have things accomplished . They got nowhere. THEN he came to TUG. Believe it or not the whole situation didnt just start here


----------



## AwayWeGo

*You Are Making Assumptions About What You Think I Assusme.*




Luckybee said:


> You are assuming that the world revolves around TUG.


I just tell it the way it is. 

My comments & observations on all this do not go beyond the bounds of the various entries in this particular discussion topic. 

That says nothing about what I assume the world revolves around -- e.g., the sun. 

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


----------



## Dave M

iamnotshopgirl said:


> Time to put this thread to bed!


I don't agree that this thread should be closed. Mark and others have raised some issues that seem legitimate, even though the discussion gets off track frequently. 

Those who would like to see the thread closed don't have to read it.


----------



## Luckybee

AwayWeGo said:


> I just tell it the way it is.
> 
> My comments & observations on all this do not go beyond the bounds of the various entries in this particular discussion topic.
> 
> That says nothing about what I assume the world revolves around -- e.g., the sun.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​




You made my point for me. You are saying that the whole thing started here when you refer to what got the ball rolling. My point is it didnt start on Tug. Although I cant speak for Mark, I have never spoken with him, although I did email him once, it was only after everything happened that he spoke on TUG. In order to get a response from the board or better put, to be ignored no longer it took the steps he took. Prior to that no one was getting anywhere, not even responses from anyone. 
Im not sure what the world revolves around....hubby says sometimes I think its me  Funny how that goes...I always though it was him....lol


----------



## marksue

Lucky,

thank you.  I could not have said it better.  Like I said this started for me back in the June timeframe.


----------



## m61376

Luckybee said:


> What does amaze me is that many of the non owners seem to find the boards actions here acceptable. Then again I guess there were those who thought what happened at Enron was okay too.



I can only speak for myself, but I think what many of us here are trying to say that, while Mark may be very right in theory, if he took a less antagonistic approach he might be more successful. From what I've read I think owners at the OC have a right to be very angry, but sometimes you win more flies with honey....


----------



## vincenzi

*Luckybee Has a Point*



Luckybee said:


> In order to get a response from the board or better put, to be ignored no longer it took the steps he took. Prior to that no one was getting anywhere, not even responses from anyone.



The same is true for me.  I had written an e-mail to the President of the Board stating to him my concerns but did not receive a reply from him.  After reading the numerous posts on this thread that was initiated by Mark,  I sent another e-mail. It was then and only then that the Board responded.  Whatever the outcome, Mark, in my humble opinion has been extremely helpful in opening up the communication between the owners and the Board.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Almost But Not Just Exactly.*




Luckybee said:


> You are saying that the whole thing started here when you refer to what got the ball rolling.


I'm saying that I offered no comments or observations about anything other than the various entries in this 1 discussion topic. 

And if you will note, most of those observations & comments, etc., had to do with diplomacy, attempts at unringing the bell, Internet sock puppetry, recycling timeshare furnishings, etc., rather than with anything to do about who's right & who's wrong.  

With regard to rights & wrongs in the fuss with Marriott, I suspect that the advice freely given by Dave & John about finding a reasonable compromise will produce quicker & more satisfactory results all round than anything coming out of a court fight or resulting from efforts to oust the HOA-BOD.  We'll see, eh ? 

Also, I greatly admire Dave's & John's restraint, maturity of tone, & overall politeness in their contributions to the discussion.  There's a reason those guys got elevated to Moderator, no ? 

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


----------



## AwayWeGo

*You Could Look It Up.*




marksue said:


> Like I said this started for me back in the June timeframe.


Others didn't get in on it till October 1, 2008*.* 

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


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> If EC is paying everyone is invited.
> 
> But anytime anyone goes into a negotiation or battle you always know a lawsuit is a remote possibility.
> 
> I am not advocating a lawsuit, so Eric and EC don't say I am .
> 
> I AM JUST GIVING THE FACTS HERE SO LETS NOT GET ON RAMPAGE I AM ADVOCATING A LAWSUIT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I AM NOT. I JUST WANT TO SHARE WHAT I HAVE UNCOVERED IN CONVERSATIONS WITH LAWYERS.



Mark,

This is from your post over on timeshareforums.com on Dec. 16, 2008

"This is far from old or dead, there * will be * a class action suit filed against Marriott for deceptive sales practices as well as to recover the costs for all repairs due to a defective building."

And yes, everyone who posted is invited for the drink. I get to pick the bar of course. And I think it is only fitting that I post the time and location on a 3x5 card behind the check-in desk at the Ocean Club. :rofl: 

Sorry Dave - could not resist that last one.


----------



## ecwinch

From my previous posts I have been accused of being a blinded Marriott fan. I am not. In fact, I own at HarbourPoint and we have recently had a number of assessments and there are some parallels with OC. Taking everything that has been said, I do believe that you have some valid complaints about how the BOD is operating and that your passion should focus on those issues. The ones I am aware of are:

1. In the BOD response, they indicate that a succession plan developed at the Jan 2008 meeting. Can the board provide the minutes of this meeting?

2. Previously, minutes for the BOD meetings were available on the owners website. They no longer seem to be available. Why were the previous minutes removed, and can we reinstate the policy of having the minutes available to owners?

3. MVCI has operated a sales office in the common areas of the OC for a number of years. What consideration has OC received for that space?

4. In the BOD response, they indicate the engineers report confirms that the building and roof are not structurally defective. As this goes to a health and safety issue that concerns all owners, can the owners be provided a copy of the report on the owners website. If this is not possible, can the BOD appoint a special committee to offer independent verification of this statement?

5. In the BOD response, they indicate that MVCI is willing to pay a portion of the roof replacement. What is the basis for MVCI doing so, and is the OC being asked to waive any legal rights in exchange for this consideration?

6. In the BOD response, they indicate that one of the reasons for increased MF is that the reserve fund was not properly funded in prior years, and the replacement costs of certain items is much higher then in the US. When was the last reserve study for the OC done, and did that reserve study take into consideration the higher cost of items/labor in Aruba. If not, when will a replacement study be conducted.

7. MVCI is currently the mgt company of the OC, working for the owners. When does their current mgt contact expire?

I think a well-crafted letter endorsed by Mark's supporters and focusing on the material issues would be the starting point. But all this innuendo about the BOD politics and the BOD being Marriot cheerleaders and puppets, detracts from the real issues. As someone else said, it makes for an interesting reality show, but it is so inflamatory that it drowns out your real issues.

And if you think you have it bad here, just pop over to the Wyndam or Worldmark forums where you have BOD's actually controlled by the developers with employees and former employees in the majority on the BOD. Even if everything said here about MVCI was true, MVCI still looks like angels in comparison.


----------



## lovearuba

*To Dave*

Thanks for explaining why you needed to check IP addresses.  I take back my comment.  I do appreciate the fact that you have tried to remain neutral and I recognize how hard that is for you.  Have a great day.


----------



## vincenzi

*Kudos to Dave*

Dave, I want to thank you for doing such a wonderful job as Moderator.  This has been a tough one.  You have provided valuable information.   I have learned a lot about timeshares, Board of Directors, and my rights as a owner.  And, as Fox would say you have..."kept it fair and balanced".


----------



## tlwmkw

*Have you tried going through Bill Marriott's office?*

If you send a reasonable and diplomatic letter to Mr. Marriott's office that may be helpful.  If you present your position in a well reasoned way and bring up your concerns then you may get some response, as well as some resolution.  My understanding is that Mr. Marriott is an honest and ethical man and takes having his name on the company very seriously and would not allow any "funny business" to occur if he was aware of it.  Of course he has a responsibility to his shareholders and needs to protect their interests but he may be helpful in this situation.   I don't know how to get in touch with him but I believe others have tried to contact his office in the past.  I would suggest that you should not threaten law suits when contacting him.


----------



## Dave M

I don't think a letter to Mr. Marriott would have any impact. People complain regularly about various things. Marrott can't change what it does merely because one person complains. But if 1,000 people all sent a well written letter....


----------



## Zac495

Dave M said:


> I don't think a letter to Mr. Marriott would have any impact. People complain regularly about various things. Marrott can't change what it does merely because one person complains. But if 1,000 people all sent a well written letter....



I'll help draft that letter. I'm a good writer...


----------



## AOC LOVER

My first post here -- after reading all the prior posts and the AOC timeshare documents.

I own 2 weeks at the Ocean Club, and have never traded them.  I am considering buying a third week there.

I don't blame Marriott for this situation, and I think it would be better if the thread title was aimed at the BOD rather than Marriott.

Dave has wisely figured this out long ago.

There is overwhelming evidence that the BOD is not adequately representing the owners, and I am understating my true feelings on this point.  However, I do not know how this situation can be corrected unless the BOD can be convinced to resign.  Getting 1000 votes to convene a meeting seems almost impossible to me.  Even electing new members of the Board who would effectively seek fair and reasonable dealings with Marriott is very difficult because we lack the ability to reach out to the members with information, and we probably lack the ability to coordinate and coalesce around the right people.

For sure it will take resources -- that is, time, energy and money.  

It will also take focus.  (I think Dave said something like this a few weeks ago.)

My suggestion is that we focus on ideas to effect change in the composition of the Board.  

I haven't seen any discussion yet about what characteristics we would want in our Board members.  Maybe that is a good place to start.

Also, it is not clear how the number of Board members is determined.  At present there is one "A" member of the Board, and four "B" members.  "B" members are the ones selected by the owners.  The By laws allow up to six "B" members.  I could not find in the by laws any indication of how the exact number of Board members is designated.  Maybe those readers with experience at other time shares can shed some light on this.


----------



## m61376

I have found that a well written letter to the office of the president clearly explaining the problem/situation can often work wonders. Companies tend to take such letters seriously and, as Dave suggested, if many people write a similar letter it can have a big impact. The letter needs to clearly outline the issues/problems and ask for their assistance to remedy the problem(s) in a non-threatening manner.


----------



## lovearuba

*Zak495*

Hi
If you want to get this letter going I'll be happy to support it.


----------



## ecwinch

vincenzi said:


> Dave, I want to thank you for doing such a wonderful job as Moderator.  This has been a tough one.  You have provided valuable information.   I have learned a lot about timeshares, Board of Directors, and my rights as a owner.  And, as Fox would say you have..."kept it fair and balanced".



I agree on all points - as Rush would say - Ditto....


----------



## Zac495

lovearuba said:


> Hi
> If you want to get this letter going I'll be happy to support it.



So let's think of the content - I'm not going to bore all of TUG with this publicly - perhaps lovearuba, Dave, and anyone else can email me and we'll talk. At least email me and say you want to see the letter upon completion. Dave, should it be to Mr. Marriott himself do you think? Where would we get the best address to use? We should send it certified mail.
I'll start with the expense and toll on the little guys (us). As for whether Marriott knew the roof was defective before, I really know if that's worthy of mention in THIS letter. He'll find out the details. I want to try to connect to him as a person. what do you think?
zac495@gmail.com
(Ellen)


----------



## marksue

Ellen,

That would be great if you want to draft the letter.  Once it is done I have a list of a few hundred owners who have signed up for the special meeting who would proabably be interested in sending out the letter.  Let me know if you need anything from me.

The only way to reach Mr. Marriott is through US Mail.  I had done some searching on the web and was unable to come up with an email address for him.  I would also send the letter to William Shaw who is the COO.


----------



## Zac495

marksue said:


> Ellen,
> 
> That would be great if you want to draft the letter.  Once it is done I have a list of a few hundred owners who have signed up for the special meeting who would proabably be interested in sending out the letter.  Let me know if you need anything from me.
> 
> The only way to reach Mr. Marriott is through US Mail.  I had done some searching on the web and was unable to come up with an email address for him.  I would also send the letter to William Shaw who is the COO.



Thanks, Mark. I'm going to work on it over the next couple of days. I already received one pm - anyone who pm's me, I'll keep your name - but email would be easier for me to reach you - so do try to send me your email in a pm - then I can cut/paste it.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Diplomacy & Authenticity.*




m61376 said:


> I have found that a well written letter to the office of the president clearly explaining the problem/situation can often work wonders. Companies tend to take such letters seriously and, as Dave suggested, if many people write a similar letter it can have a big impact. The letter needs to clearly outline the issues/problems and ask for their assistance to remedy the problem(s) in a non-threatening manner.


For purposes of effective diplomacy, it will be best if the letter does not start off saying _Dear Sir, You Cur_ (or words to that effect). 

For purposes of grassroots authenticity, it will be best if the letters don't all say exactly the same thing in exactly the same words.  Lots of different letters in people's own words are apt to come across as more sincere than lots of copies of essentially the same boilerplate. 

Best of success to you in reaching a workable & realistic resolution. 

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


----------



## Zac495

Aw Alan - me? Dear Sir? LOL. I have my own creative flair. I'll sound totally different. NOT saying I'll be any more successful than the others, but I'm going to give it the old college try.

Those who are already on Mark's distribution list - no need to email me - I'll send him the letter and he'll send it through you. Despite the little incident - we're all in this together.


----------



## StarwoodCanadafan

*Please add me to the unfortunate list of those here..*

Hi,

I purchased earlier this year.. and got the fright of my life with the increase in the Maint. I own a 1 BR which was $850 or so, now $1250 or so.

Reading through a lot of what was posted.. I think what is stated below is really applicable. We are all in this together. It is actually good for Marriott to have division here. Let's unify on a couple of things:

1. There is no way in hell we should be faced with a 40% + increase. This is the worst economic time in our history.

2. Let's determine if the sales people did in fact know there was an issue on this last year. If so, isn't it misrepresentation not to inform new purchasers that this is going on?

3. Address the issue formally, and in writing from a large community here to Marriott to outline one and two.. and to then suggest this type of increase should not be passed down.. particularly in the economic climate we are in.

4. Address the BOD concerns.

Thanks for including me on your list





Zac495 said:


> Aw Alan - me? Dear Sir? LOL. I have my own creative flair. I'll sound totally different. NOT saying I'll be any more successful than the others, but I'm going to give it the old college try.
> 
> Those who are already on Mark's distribution list - no need to email me - I'll send him the letter and he'll send it through you. Despite the little incident - we're all in this together.


----------



## StarwoodCanadafan

*Email the General Manager at the resort at marriott@setarnet.aw*

Got this from my ownership rep.




m61376 said:


> I have found that a well written letter to the office of the president clearly explaining the problem/situation can often work wonders. Companies tend to take such letters seriously and, as Dave suggested, if many people write a similar letter it can have a big impact. The letter needs to clearly outline the issues/problems and ask for their assistance to remedy the problem(s) in a non-threatening manner.


----------



## Zac495

The board emailed me and said Marriott assured them owners may make payment arrangements - we called and asked Marriott - they said no way. I'm emailing back about that.


----------



## Luckybee

I wish you luck, truly I do Ellen, but that said having just read the report emailed to me by the owner who was at the most recent board meeting with both the "owner members"(no pun intended), and the Marriott members I am skeptical that you'll get anywhere. The one thing that seemed abundantly clear from this gentlemans report is that the last thing anyone involved in the meeting(other than Allen Cohen and this gentleman) were concerned about were the owners. They apparently made it abundantly clear that they had no interest in considering anything the owners had to say unfortunately.


----------



## marksue

Lucky,

I don't disagree but am totally supportive if someone has a valid suggestion on what to try.  It can not hurt to send a few hundred letters to Mr.  Marriott.  At least he will become aware of owners concerns, if he isn't already.  This is just one of a few approaches under way.  I have a call with a few owners, who are working behind the scenes, on Saturday where we are going to discuss some next steps.  We can speak after that call and I can fill you in.  I will not be posting what is discussed  on the call here, but will speak with any owner who is interested.


----------



## ecwinch

For once, I agree with MarkSue. While I think it is a longshot that MVCI will intervene in regards to the issues regarding how the BOD wants to handle business, I think it might put in the BOD in a more responsive mode to the owners concerns.


----------



## marksue

I heard from another owner regarding the payment plan and they heard the same thing as Ellen that Marriott had no payment plan.  Ellen, let me know if you hear anything back on that.


----------



## qlaval

Speaking of poor resale value....

$4,500 for a 1Bd gold week...
http://cgi.ebay.com/Marriott-Aruba-Ocean-Club-Villa-Timeshare-for-Sale_W0QQitemZ280299099811


----------



## lovearuba

*not surprised*

This is not unique to the ocean club, all the timeshare prices are pretty low.  It seems to be right in line with the housing industry.


----------



## irish

i just rented my week at the ocean club for 2009(gold week) for LESS then my yearly m/f's.BUT at least it got rented. 2008 not even an inquiry and i had a REALLY good week.


----------



## marksue

Wow,  That is giving the unit away.  Pricies may be down but that is below down,  that is so far in the basement.  Marriott is selling those units, well trying to sell those units for 18k.


----------



## marksue

For all owners who would like to know the latest to where this effort is going, there was a conference call yesterday among a group of owners.  We disucssed specific steps we are taking.  I will not post what steps we are undertaking since Marriott is watching this board, but if you send me a PM, I can call you with an update.  Those that already ahve my phone number please feel free to call me.


----------



## m61376

Sounds like an anxious seller who just wanted to free himself of MF's and the assessment. I don't know that we can conclude that this reflects current value unless we start to see a stream at these prices.

I guess if someone is trying to keep his head above water in this economy it pays to sell even at such a low price rather than pay a postcard company or let Marriott foreclose. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in that predicament today.


----------



## modoaruba

*just being cynical*

Redweek has of today 140 units for rent starting at $14/night!!!
Resales starting at $9250!!!

Great times to increase our MF.
Sounds like pouring in more money into a poor investment in severley inopportune times is a great solution.

What about a Marriott bailout?

Or should we call Maddoff?

Can't help being cynical. Sorry.


----------



## vincenzi

*I Think the Ad In Redweek Was Posted Incorrectly*



modoaruba said:


> Redweek has of today 140 units for rent starting at $14/night!!!



I looked at the ad for AOC on the Redweek website and it read $14 a night for 147 nights.  I think???the ad should have read $147 a night for 14 nights.


----------



## lovearuba

*ha ha*

Hi
I'll rent it for $14 a night, thats really funny:whoopie:


----------



## modoaruba

Guess you can't believe everything you read.

Which is what this whole blog is about?

You can't believe everything Marriott and/or the Board say?

My mistake, a lesson learned.


----------



## MikeM132

You never know. We stayed at the Borgata in Atlantic City for 5.95 in September.


----------



## marksue

Any owners that have thier bills for previous years.  If you notice Marriott states the estimated useful life of the roof to be 25 years.  Earlier years had 6 - 25 and then they say jsut 25.  Then in 2006 they say remaining life is 25 years so the information we are getting from MVCI on the rrof has been contradictary.  Just pointing out information given to me today that we should all be aware of.

The furniture, fistures and equipment, as of 2006, still have life expectancy of 8 years, so this being 2009 says there is still 5 years left.  Why do we need to replace it all  now?


I think there is an explanation needed by the board and Marriott arround this discrepancy.


----------



## qlaval

vincenzi said:


> I looked at the ad for AOC on the Redweek website and it read $14 a night for 147 nights.  I think???the ad should have read $147 a night for 14 nights.



Sure the owner did a typo mistake...
Price: $2,000 (*$14 per night*) 
Length of Stay: *147* nights *<<<<<<<<*
Available: Dec 19, 2009 - Jan 1, 2010 

In this particular case it's $2,000 for 13 nights (not 14...?) Xmas + New Year!
The ad don't tell but you can bet that this is the lockoff and not the full villa....


----------



## qlaval

m61376 said:


> Sounds like an anxious seller who just wanted to free himself of MF's and the assessment.
> I don't know that we can conclude that this reflects current value unless we start to see a stream at these prices...



You're absolutly right.
Probably someone who wanted to bail out as fast as he can.
Starting price was only $1,500 NO reserve with a BIN of $4,500...

For many people paying $1,200 or more for only one week in a one bedroom during *LOW* season doesn't worth it and I tend to agree with that.
Remember a one bedroom cannot be split for two weeks like at the SC for the same maintenance fee...


----------



## m61376

qlaval said:


> You're absolutly right.
> Probably someone who wanted to bail out as fast as he can.
> Starting price was only $1,500 NO reserve with a BIN of $4,500...
> 
> For many people paying $1,200 or more for only one week in a one bedroom during *LOW* doesn't worth it and I tend to agree with that.
> Remember a one bedroom cannot be split for two weeks like at the SC for the same maintenance fee...



For most of the other Caribbean islands I might agree that low season (silver) would hold a lot less value (although many have paid big bucks for the newer Marriott resorts even in Silver season), but there is really no low season in Aruba. The winter weeks are peak period because of the Northeasterners wanting to escape this wonderful frigid weather but since the climate is basically the same year round, it is a desirable vacation locale year-round, so the value doesn't dive like some Silver or Bronze weeks elsewhere..


----------



## qlaval

Yes Aruba is a nice place all year around.
But there is a big difference in price for rentals and hotel fare during let's say a week in October and one in February....
So the value compared to the maintenance fees paid is a lesser one during "low" season.


----------



## marksue

Ellen,

The letter ha
s been distributed to all owners who have responded to the calling of the special board meeting.  I have asked that all the letters be sent out if possible within the week.


----------



## modoaruba

IRS has just approved waiving late fees for many taxpayers.
Maybe even a payment plans.

Hey Marriott, ARE YOU UP ON WHAT'S GOING ON?


----------



## marksue

This came from an owner who questioned about the sharing between the resorts.  So if anyone needs clarification on what is and is not shared here it is.  The onlything that I have not heard, sicne it was supposed to be revisted in Dec was the pool area sharing was to be revisited.

I am not sure where the information you heard may have come from as the Ocean Club Board still maintains the same stance it did over a year ago in regards to the pool areas between the two properties. For cost saving reasons as well as vacation enhancement the three Marriott properties do have an integration agreement of which many facilities are shared. Presently the Ocean Club shares the Resort Health Club, the Tennis Courts and Basketball Court are shared by all, the Kid’s Club at Surf Club is used by Ocean Club, etc. The one area the Boards of both Ocean Club and Surf Club requested for Marriott to consider in October 2007 was placing a temporary suspension to the agreement is the sharing of those two pool areas. Nothing has changed and that suspension is closely monitored by myself and the Surf Club General Manager; exceptions are only given from time to time due to the fact that we have over 1,500 owners at both properties and they have families that come all at the same time.


----------



## marksue

I spoke to Stephen Weisz president of MVCI.  Stephen I appreciate you giving your time today to speak.  I speak to him directly as he did mention that he reads Tug. Even though we do not agree about the state of the Ocean Club he did stress that if we the owners do not like what the board is doing we need to change the makeup of the board.  

We the owners know the building has leaked since the Ocean Club opened yet this is denied by MVCI.  He said if we have proof that it was defective then the board needs to direct this to MVCI and MVCI will defend their stance on the building.

I do believe there is enough information from the engineering reports, the environmental report and the list of all the repairs due to the leaking and flooding for the board to be proactive and go to MVCI to get a fair deal for owners.  I would recommend the board bring in some owners to partake in this effort to provide transparency and trust.


----------



## dioxide45

marksue said:


> I do believe there is enough information from the engineering reports, the environmental report and the list of all the repairs due to the leaking and flooding for the board to be proactive and go to MVCI to get a fair deal for owners.  I would recommend the board bring in some owners to partake in this effort to provide transparency and trust.



Isn't the board a group of owners voted in by the owners to work on the other owner’s behalf?


----------



## Zac495

marksue said:


> Ellen,
> 
> The letter ha
> s been distributed to all owners who have responded to the calling of the special board meeting.  I have asked that all the letters be sent out if possible within the week.



Great - did you update it from the one you sent with the red marks?


----------



## marksue

No red marks on the one I mailed .


----------



## vincenzi

My letter to Mr. J. Willard Marriott, Jr. is in the mail.  I made an appeal to him to look into this matter.


----------



## luvmypt

Has anybody else received an update from Allen Cohen today?


----------



## marksue

I got it this morning and sent him an email about posting it here. I will post when I get the ok.  Very informative and supports a lot of what many of us have said here.


----------



## OCsun

luvmypt said:


> Has anybody else received an update from Allen Cohen today?



Yes, I received the letter and I am very grateful to Allan for sharing that information.  The part regarding Marriott retaining 10% of annual maintenance fees for managing the resort is really upsetting to me.  I agree with the opinion that Marriott's fee should be a based on the services they provide and should not be tied to the cost of electricity going up on the island.   What a rip off!!  I am *sooooo* mad at Marriott that I would be selling my unit immediately if the market was in better shape.  I will never buy another Marriott timeshare, they have left a very bitter taste in my mouth.


----------



## Eric

Ok, here we go again. Has that changed since you bought ? of course not. They have been doing it that way for 20 years and you decide now, thats not the way they should do it and you are mad. Amazing logic .... When you sold a house last year , the realtor got 5% of the selling price. This year they STILL get 5% even though the selling price is probably much lower. Lots of fees are based on percentages. 



OCsun said:


> The part regarding Marriott retaining 10% of annual maintenance fees for managing the resort is really upsetting to me.  I agree with the opinion that Marriott's fee should be a based on the services they provide and should not be tied to the cost of electricity going up on the island.  :


----------



## ecwinch

OCsun said:


> I agree with the opinion that Marriott's fee should be a based on the services they provide and should not be tied to the cost of electricity going up on the island.



Ditto to Eric's point.

Also, how to you value the following services they provide:

1) Use of and /affiliation with Marriott brand. A brand they have built and maintain
2) The value of internal trading system within II - including reduced exchange fee and 30 day preference. It is important to note that no other resort brand has the same level of rights as the MVCI brand within II


----------



## dioxide45

ecwinch said:


> Ditto to Eric's point.
> 
> Also, how to you value the following services they provide:
> 
> 1) Use of and /affiliation with Marriott brand. A brand they have built and maintain
> 2) The value of internal trading system within II - including reduced exchange fee and 30 day preference. It is important to note that no other resort brand has the same level of rights as the MVCI brand within II



These are very important, while the owners now may not be happy with Marriott, they should be happy that the resort carries its name. That name makes it worth more than it would be without it.


----------



## marksue

*Allan's Letter pt 1*

Now since you have received your shocking 2009 Maintenance bill an d await the assessment bill in a few months I wish to update you and to respond to the many emails and call I have received regarding this a nd the recent correspondence forwarded by Marriott Management (MM) headed Frequently Asked Questions and signed by the Board of Directors.

I wish to make it clear that I had never seen or were ever informed about this document prior to it being sent. Since my removal as President and my vote against the current Maintenance fee the Board has not kept me informed of any correspondence to Owners or from Owners.  During my tenure as President I always shared with the other Owner Board members all my correspondence for c omments and review prior to it being sent. We may not all agree, but this lack of open communications, has lead to a lot of mistrust by&nb sp;Owners who feel that they do not have complete or accurate information. 

In my continued efforts to keep you, my fellow Owners informed in a truthful and factual manner I wish to comment on some on the FAQ responses from (MM) and the rest of the Board and share my proposals to the Board.

I also have been reading with interest owner comments on the Timeshare Users Group (TUG2) Bulletin Board forum tread  http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t =82564.  I never had regularly looked at Blogs before it was brought to my attention the day after the AOC annual meeting in a phone call from the new President in which he stated that he had been told by (MM), who read the Blogs on a daily basis, that unless I stopped the Blog comments from owners that  "MM would sue me personally".   


I did not start this Blog nor had anything to do with it, and do not appreciate the threat by the Board and MM.  Because of the actions taken at the Annual Meeting many Owners feel that they are not being heard and started this Bulletin Board which now seems to be a focal point for owners to get information and vent their concerns about the actions taken by MM and the Board of Directors.

I have always believed in open communications and although I have been reluctant to respond on the blogs, I have and will continue to talk to any owner who emails me at C20854@aol.com or calls me at 301-299-2118. 

I would like to further explain my removal as President, but must inform you that The Board after removing me as President held a special meeting and passed a resolution (4 to 1) which made all information privy to the Board as confidential including all minutes, resolutions etc which cannot be divulged without prior written approval of the Board of Directors. All information that I had previously posted on the web site was immediately removed and any violation of this resolution, the Board has the right to sue the individual personally and seek monetary damages.  After passage of this resolution I made a motion that the resolution having been adopted be forwarded to owners and be posted on our web site.  My motion was not seconded nor commented on by any Board member.   Since I cannot share the resolution with you all the information I am sharing has been discussed an d shared with numerous owners previously.

I strongly feel that every owner has an equal right to know what is happening.  I do not understand what information that I as a Board member and Owner should have that you as a fellow Owner cannot be made aware of.  We all have an ownership and financial interest in the Aruba Ocean Club. 

I feel that the gag order that has been imposed on me is very unfortunate for all owners.  I hope that we can amend our bylaws very soon to insure open communications.      

* My responses to the document: Marriott’s AOC Frequently Asked Questions & 13 Action Items   *

Question: Is Allan Cohen, the previous President of the Association, still serving on the Association Board? 


*Yes, I am still on the Board but do not remember any discussion of a succession plan being discussed at the January meeting and the minutes do not reflect any.  My only information came after I heard about a private meeting being scheduled by two of our Board members with the new GM in Aruba for September.  When asked about what was going on - I was told that the owner members wanted to remove me as President since this was my last year on the Board.  At the same time they rescinded the resolution which had been passed by the Board and was to be mailed to all owners for a vote on the removal of the term limit provision of our by laws.  MM was adamantly opposed to any changes in the term limit provision and spoke to the Board about it.  It is interesting that the Marriott Corporate Board does not have term limits.  

Since they had the votes needed - I had no say, but I was told that this was to take place at an organizational meeting sometime after the annual meeting.  What happened at the Board meeting the day prior to the Annual meeting was a surprise to me and was to insure th at I would not be able to conduct the Annual meeting the next day.  This occurred after MM met with the other members of the Board two times - one showing them a copy of a blog posting stating that Allan Cohen and the Board were considering a class action effort against MM.  When asked about this - I stated that the Board had received letters from owners stating that a class action effort would be considered if MM did not take some responsibility for the building issues.   MM and the Board wrote a response posted on the blog and our web site.  The second meeting with the other Board members occurred the same day after MM obtained a copy of a confidential private email sent that morning from the Boards Aruba attorney David Koch addressed to me.  I had requested action options to be presented at the annual meeting if necessary depending on MM resolution of the Building cost issues. * 
The email: 
-----Original Message-----
From: David Kock <david@dkwlegal.com>
To: C20854@aol.com< /A>
Sent: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 7:38 pm
Subject: motion

Dear Allan,

As discussed on the phone I would recommend a text for the motion containing the following:

Motion to transfer the further negotiations with and/or required lawsuit(s) against the developer (and possible allied or parent company/companies) regarding all the indicated defects which have not been remedied and have, among others, caused the recent water and related damages to the resort, to the attorneys of the AOC with instructions to proceed immediately in this matter. The attorneys must firstly pursue all means to resolve these matters in favor of the AOC in an amicable manner wi thin a short period of time and in the event that such a resolution cannot be obtained, to pursue all legal avenues to obtain the desired results within the shortest possible timeframe. 

Please let me know if this text covers what you intended or if you want it to be amended or simplified. I know its kind of long, but I wanted to word it in such a way that it would clearly remove doubts as what the exact instructions to the lawyers are. Sorry for the delay.

Regards
NOTICE 
Unless otherwise indicated or obvious from the na ture of the transmittal, the information contained in this e-mail message is attorney privileged and confi dential information intended for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is directed.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error or are not sure whether it is privileged, please immediately notify the sender by telephone, and return the original message to the sender at the above address.  Our general terms and conditions, which include a limitation of professional liability, are applicable to all service rendered by the firm and its employees.
==================================================================================================

This resolution was similar to the one that the Board passed in Jan uary 2008,  which I feel is the only reason that we got any action from MM on several of our demands.  The removal action taken by the Board was to insure that MM did not have to deal with my questions and concerns.

==================================================================================================
Question: Why are roof and other repairs needed at Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club? Was the building defective?

*It was MM consultant that stated the immediate need for the roof replacement and it could not be repaired stating: “The weight of the wet/saturated substrate is greater than  the original design loads of the roof structure and hence represents a risk of failure of the roof structure.”...    I have not seen any final report from our consultants that our roof was not defective or met the original design specifications. 

After MM hired a roof contractor,  the Board on behalf of the Owners retained a nationally recognized mold consultant Connie Morback CEO of Sanit-Air, Inc.(also an owner at the Ocean Club) to bring a team to Aruba and review the on going repair work undertaken by MM.  Her team consisted of herself and two engineers James Partridge of James Partridge Consulting, LLC and Stephen Rudner of Robert Darvas Associates Consulting Structural Engineers.  They visited Aruba the week of September 7-11, 2008.  I was fortunate to be with them and witness the professionalism and detail review.  MM at the same time retained Gobbell Hays Partners to follow=2 0our team and take samples and observations where ever Connie's team did.  Gobbell Hays in their brochure state that they had provided project management and design for the safe removal of moisture-contaminated building materials and finishes as well as corrective action to fight moisture growth from the interior of the Aruba Suirf Club.     

Since my removal as President, I have not been given any information from or allowed contact with our consultants per the Board directive. 

I have complete faith in the findings of Connie and her team and feel that it is important that Connie's report or summary be shared with the entire Board and owners to see her recommendations and expert opinion on mold remediation, the roof structure and the quality of the work being undertaken.  We must understand the condition of our Building and not just take MM statements.   I have also asked that MM share their report from Gobbell Hayes so we as owners can see what they are also saying about the conditions at the Aruba Ocean Club.* 
Question: Does the Board represent Owners or does it represent Marriott Vacation Club? 

*The Board has on retainer two excellent Aruba Attorney's Antonio De Carlo and David Koch for review and consultation.  Of course we want to have a long term positive relationship, but we want fair and equitable treatment also.  MM feels that our retention of legal experts and consultants has caused an "adversarial relationship".  This is unfortunate,=2 0then why does everything that we request goes thru their legal department?&n bsp; Our legal counsels have stated that many issues that MM state as fact are open to interpretation.  Like the issue of the Sales and Marketing desk in the Lobby and some of the building repair and maintenance costs which represents millions of dollars in lost revenue and expenses.  MM financial concessions may only be a small portion of what owners have already spent or about to spend on repairs or lost in revenue.

Should we just accept MM legal opinion as fact when it continues to cost us greatly.  As ou r attorney's have stated many times - remember - MM works for the Owners" - they are your management company.  

I understand that every document that we have was drafted, written, and signed by MM for MM since no owners existed when the AOC was created.  We bought into something where there were no arm length transactions and it was because of the fine reputation and our faith and belief in Marriott as a corporation.  I would like to continue to believe in this.  *


----------



## marksue

*Allans letter pt 2*

Question: Why are we getting such a big increase in annual maintenance fees, approved by the Board? 

*Yes, we have had a number of large increases in utilities on the Island this year.  But I continue to question how much we could have saved if we did not spend so much on repair and maintenance items.   I did not support the maintenance fee amount yet the Board (4/1) accepted the amount that MM stated they needed.  I asked MM if they could reduce the amount and the answer was yes, but we might have to reduce some services.  I feel that it would have been worth looking into what services might be reduced or done more efficiently in order to get our maintenance fee to a reasonable figure. * 
Q uestion: What are our assurances that maintenance fees won't continue to escalate each year?

*We had over 40 well qualified owners who volunteered for the Board finance committee.  Two owners were selected under the direction of our Treasurer.  I am hopeful that they will be given all the information necessary in a timely fashion to provide guidance and not be restricted from openly sharing their views with the entire Board and Owners.  I have not been informed if they have been consulted as of yet.* 
Question: Why is an assessment needed at this time, what will it accomplish and why are we paying for it? 

*Yes, our reserve account has been underestimated since day one.  We have relied on MM as the professionals wh o set the Brand standards which include a ten year refurbishment and what ever dollar amount they and their outside experts requested we funded.  It is also probably true that if we had added $100 per unit to our reserves each of the past ten years, we would not need any assessment for the refurbishment.  But as one owner stated - during the first 5 years alone - MM would have had to pay millions of dollars extra into the reserves under this scenario since the units would not have been sold.  Although owners at that time would also have had to pay the additional $100 each year - it would have been a lot easier than the huge increases today.  

I have always been supportive of the need for updating our facility.  The Ten year refurbishment assessment had been mentioned to owners for the past two years so it should not have been a surprise.  But I did not want to spend any funds until we knew that our building was water tight.  Unfortunately, after the storm where 120 rooms were damaged MM informed us that the need for a complete re caulking of all openings was needed ASAP.  I am still concerned about any improvements to the rooms and lobby area until the roof and drainage system are repaired, tested and I hope signed off by our consultants.   * 
Question: Why do we even need a renovation or at a minimum, why can't it be put off for 2-3 years? 

*I have always been supportive of the need to update our facility because it is showing wear, but with the unexpected large increases in the maintenance fee and today's economic climate, I proposed to the Board a motion to let the owners have an opportunity to vote on the timing of the refurbishment and assessment.  The Board refused to consider my motion. 

I have heard from many owners who are really struggling to make ends meet at this time.  ; They say "What good is a beautiful new villa if you can barely afford to own it any longer".  We will never know if the majority of owners would be willing to live with the existing villas and briefly delay the refurbishment because of today's economics conditions.* 
=================================================================================================================

Question: Owners used to be able to contact the former President about issues and concerns and he would respond directly back to them with an answer. Owners are now being asked to send their questions to a general email address for the Board instead of directly to the President of the Association. Why the change? 

*This was never discussed at a Board meeting or with me.  Owner satisfaction with my ability to get a response back to them from me or the GM was always praised.  I feel that those elected to the Board should be willing to respond to those who they represent.   Even MM own Customer Relations Manager requested his contact information be removed from our web site because he was getting to many questions from owners.   

Prior to my removal as President and complaints from MM - the Board had stated that I would continue to communicate with Owners and maintain the web site.   Now it is the Board and MM opinion that I provide too much information to the Owners.  In the past MM has tried to control what I say to Owners and what was placed on www.Arubaoceanclub.com web site.   I had always shared with the other owner members of the Board all information prior to posting on the web site seeking their comments and advice.  I have also stated that if MM found any information that I posted that is not correct I will correct it immediately.   They never informed me of any.  

The current new policy is that MM with the other Board members control all information going to Owners.  All your emails to the new aocbod@vacationclub.com are not shared with all members of the Board and responses are made thru MM.  I am not convinced that the Board's goal of "open and re sponsive communications" is being met.    *
===============================================================
                                       13  ACTION ITEMS FOR OWNER MEETING
I am urging the Board on behalf of the Owners to formally for the record take action on all items regarding the building repairs.  No action by the Board has been taken.  I will request a special meeting of Owners to act on these.

1. A motion that the Board/Owners consultant  (Connie) provide the entire Board and Owners a copy of her report and a written acknowledgement of all items that they continue t o differ with MM  (if any) so that we as a Board on behalf of the Owners either accept MM responses or our Consultants.  Where a difference of opinion occurs we should take appropriate action.   
We are spending millions of dollars and it has been obvious from prior work that some of our MM maintenance has not been satisfactory and oversight questionable. A draft consultant's report had raised a number of serious concerns regarding the installation of the new roof.  In particular the quality and changes of material, the drain size, the lack of fastening of the under layment as requested by the mfg, and the ability of the underground storage facility to hold the runoff thus causing the continued flooding of the rear managers patio and our lobby.  To my knowledge these items have not been resolved and signed off by our Consultant.  Who is to pay for this?  Also, what is the final solution for the repairs necessary for the rear front office walls that has leaked since the building was built?  Has the Board/Owner consultant approved of this remedy and who will be paying for this repair?

2. A motion that the warranty for all the work conducted for MM be reviewed by the Boards/Owners consultant and our attorney for comment and recommendations prior to approval by the Board.
After review of the consultants recommendations the Board on behalf of the Owners should vote on whether to accept the terms of this warranty or amend it before any approval of payment is made for the work.  The entire Board and Owners should be given in writing the details of the warranty. 

3.  A motion to recover the entire costs of the front atrium windows since a warranty did exist but we were informed incorrectly at the time.  Also, request reimbursement for the repair and maintenance costs involved because of the water intrusion.  
During the consultants visit in September  I witnessed the Island mold remediation company under what was stated as mold remediation standards remove all the sheet rock on floors 2-6 in the atrium area because of water intrusion.  This had to cost us thousands of dollars.   What did our consultants recommend ?  The replacement of some of the rusted interior metal studs in these walls was noted for removal.  This was stated as a temporary fix - when will this be redone?  During the past 10 years how many times have we done this and who should pay for this?

4. A motion that we seek a hold harmless agreement from MM drafted by our attorney on behalf of the Board and Owners for all work done including any future injury or environmental health claims.  Also seek payment for all interior/exterior repairs as a result of the work being undertaken.  Any future claims for illness related t o wat er intrusion and mold could be a great expense unless we are sure that all water intrusion issues are handled correctly.
The consultant draft report including the comments from the Boards/Owners structural engineers questioned a number of issues relating to blue prints provided by MM that seemed to be inconsistent with how the building was accurately built.  Two of the items questioned included the ground drainage off the roof as well as flashing around the building.  Mold remediation standards must be adhered to.  MM has stated that everything is being done correctly. Since this may be the cause for some of the water intrusion since the building was built, recovery of all costs should be sought.  

5. A motion to accept or reject MM proposal as it relates to the remaining original windows that have not been replaced but continue to fail.  
C urrently MM has paid for the installation of the failed windows after getting the new windows free from the original manufacturer.  It has been stated verbally by MM last year that all windows would be replaced now we they are only replacing failed windows.  We need assurance in writing that they will continue to replace all windows that fail at no cost.  The manufacturer warranty is about to expired and this could cost Owners a lot of money in the future.    

6. A motion that the repainting of the front exterior be completed at no cost to the owners. 
This was stated by MM engineer.  If this is not true - seek recovery of all costs involved and damages if any. 

7. A motion to withhold all payments relating to the construction on all items not approved and signed off by the Boards/Owners independent consultant.  
We must have outside professional oversight to insure that the work is being done correctly, so we do not have the problems that exist today with our Building.


----------



## marksue

*Allan's letter pt 3*

8. A motion to seek recovery of the $26,000 expenditure for the site survey from MM our developer.  
The document given to the Board was not an accurate survey (the building shape was not even the same).

9. A motion to accept or reject the offer of 48% of costs for the roof replacement from MM as their total resp onsibility as fair and equitable or insufficient. 
What is the recommendations of our consultant as to the quality of the old roof, the installation and maintenance of it and if possible explain why it failed?  Is the new roof's costs reasonable, the installation correct and 10 year warranty industry standard? 

10.  A motion that a Board consultant review the proposed scope of work and costs required to re caulk and tighten the entire building as recommended by MM.  
After the recent storm 120 rooms were damaged and MM consultant stated that we must re caulk the entire building to make it water tight. =2 0  What have we been doing during the last 10 years in our repair and maintenance program to maintain our building from water intrusion?  Were these funds spent appropriately?  Who should pay the estimated $750,000 for this? What preventative measures do we have to insure that we have the correct ongoing maintenance?

11. A motion to accept or reject the resolution from MM as to the structural repairs that their consultant noted in his report.   
After receiving written comments from the Board/Owners consultant regarding MM consultants original recommendation to sand blast and paint the steel structure, we should take formal action on this.  Do we have the steel sand blasted at a cost estimate of $100,000 or do nothing if the damage will not effect us for many years?  Since MM consultant stated that the structural steel rusted because "the erected frame stood exposed to weather for approximately five years ... and the roofing membrane is reportedly original construction and there have been numerous leaks and subsequent patches".  Who should pay these costs and should we seek recovery for previous repairs and damages?

12.  A motion to accept or reject the offer from MM the sum of $500 per month (as a good will gesture) for the future use of the sales and marketing desk located in the Ocean Club lobby as reasonable and fair.  
On 4/13/07 MM informed the Board that "income derived from outside venders in AOC lobby space rental ... si nce the inception of outside rental income has been $103,128 and was incorrectly applied to the management company..."  It was also stated that this does not include the use of the 2-4 Sales & Marketing desks in the Ocean club lobby.  MM stated they had a legal right to continue a sale presence in the lobby area without financial consideration according to MM legal counsel.  

Our legal counsel states:    "It can be debated whether these contractual "access rights" under article 5.1 of the Construction and Use Agreement (CUA) grant MVCIA the right to "conduct the sales and marketing activities from the sales desk in the AOC-lobby without having to pay rent. In the context of this articles the contractual right to "access" seems to give right to egress, right to enter upon and transit within the premises, but it does not specifically give the right to install sales desks in the lobby. "Access" to the common facilities is of a different order than occupation of the common facilities. I am not sure the CUA would give the right for annexation of portions of the common facilities for the installation of sales desks. .. Furthermore, it can be argued that the access rights, even in the elastic view of MVCIA, are applicable for the sales and marketing with respect to the resort which was the subject of the CUA...."

At a rate of $2000 to $7000 per desk paid by other vendors for lobby space per month - you can see how this would add to our bottom line. MM response is that the lobby sales desks continue to serve  ;our owners and  and has helped owners resell hundreds of weeks. The Resale's of our villa with Marriott's 40% commission rate has generated Millions of dollars worth of revenue for Marriott and should not be a reason not to pay for current and past use of lobby space to the Association. This is a great deal of lost revenue (could be as high as $1 million) to Owners and the Board should take action now.

13. A Motion to look at other options to MM response to the Boards resolution pertaining to the Management fee structure:

On October 17, 2007 - the Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club Board of Directors passed the following motion.  
Moved: That the Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club Board of Director's initiate discussions with MVCI=2 0to amend our management agreement from its current management fee of  "10% of all money that we collect pursuant to the annual budget and Maintenance fee schedule for the Ocean Club including all special assessments (not including the management fee)" to a fixed annual fee with a periodic adjustment for inflation. Per our contract this can be implemented with mutual agreement between both parties.


MM response was "MVCI is currently not agreeing to any changes in the management fee structure for AOC. Although we might consider changes in the future, we would only contemplate doing this if we were to amend the management fee structure for all MVCI resorts, not for individual resorts. ... MVCI is not obligated to do so under the terms of the current management agreement, and is not prepared to enter into any discussions and/or negotiations to this extend. Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that no changes have ever been made to the fee structure as it was first communicated to our owners at the time of purchas e. In fact, MVCI has always been very up front about the 10% management fee it charges to AOC owners, as well as to owners of most other MVCI resorts." 

Most owners do not realize that our contract call for " the payment of 10% of all money MRHA is required to collect pursuant to the annual Budget and Maintenance fee schedule for the Timeshare plan and the Resort Property and special assessments, excluding for such Budget and maintenance fee schedule for purposes of such calculation the management fee hereunder."  This means that for every dollar we spend and thus have to collect for we must pay an additional ten cents as part of our management fee.  I do not see how any taxes, renovations, or increases in utilities fees should effect the management fee.  The management fee should be based on the reasonable cost to manage the property and not other factors.  MM told us that they would be working on changes for all resorts last year.  No further action has been announced. We must be prepared before our 15 year contract is automatically renewed.   

 ===============================================================================================
I hope that every Owner will support a special meeting of Owners if the Board does not act.   I will be seeking action on my motions and By Law changes to insure that you will be given timely and correct information.  Thank you.

Sincerely, 
Allan 
c20854@aol.com
301-299-2118


----------



## qlaval

Finally the REAL story is out.....


----------



## lovearuba

*for many of you that doubted us*

Its time to join the cause.


----------



## atlcycle

*very concerned*

I am very concerned with what I am hearing unfortunately blogs are NOT a dependable way of communicating usually.  People tend to post VERY one sided comments that tend to not know the whole picture.

Having sat on a condo board with one board member that always wanted to put off maintenance that would cause long term damage to the building.  I also hear that MM will put extreme pressure on the association to not blame them for any "things" they may have done in their own interest.  This including threatening to sue the board members each personally which few people have time or money to defend.

Having said all that I think there is only two ways to resolve the problem.  I  support FIRST a completely open AND published arbitration (non-binding) intervention.  This allowing a independent arbiter to publish information that MUST be released from BOTH parties (ie reports, Board communication, MM communication with the board and reports from any consultant brought onto the property no matter who hired them).

If either party chooses to not participate, I believe it is time to file a lawsuit against MM  AND  the Association Board.  Remembering that based on what I have read the Board has gone secret with its communications.  That is NOT THE RIGHT of the Board unless dealing with individual resident problems. 

I have put my name on this communications because I am not scared of the Board or MM.  I am MORE than capable of defending myself from either or both.

Rad Slough
Atlanta


----------



## ecwinch

atlcycle said:


> I am very concerned with what I am hearing unfortunately blogs are NOT a dependable way of communicating usually.  People tend to post *VERY one sided comments* that tend to not know the whole picture.



Just keep in mind that 90% of the information in this thread comes from one source. 

And there are two issues here that keep getting blended together. First you have the unproven claim of a defective roof/building. Nothing in this letter proves that claim.

Secondly you have the allegation that MM is controlling the BOD.

Yes, there are some questionable BOD politics going on, and Allan is loser in that race. However, as you note above, this is a one-sided interpretation of the events. And it is so rife with bias and inconsistency, that I am not going to even belabor that point.

And before the mob marches off to the altar of the courts, keep in mind one comment from Allan's letter:

_"Our legal counsels have stated that many issues that MM state as fact are open to interpretation."_

My experience is that this is legalese, for - "we will be happy to take this case for you, how would you like to handle the billing?".


----------



## OCsun

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ERIC - "Ok, here we go again. Has that changed since you bought ? of course not. They have been doing it that way for 20 years and you decide now, thats not the way they should do it and you are mad. Amazing logic .... When you sold a house last year , the realtor got 5% of the selling price. This year they STILL get 5% even though the selling price is probably much lower. Lots of fees are based on percentages." 


Eric, 

You are right!  I should have taken the time to investigate how Marriott charged for the use of their name – my mistake.  The comparison to a realtor,  is a good example of why Marriott’s method of charging for their management is outdated.  Most people have discovered you can obtain realtor services for less than 5%, if you shop around.
I paid up front for the Marriott Brand and believed maintenance fees  would average  5% a year – another mistake I made.   Times have changed and so have I.  IMHO, the value of a discounted trading fee is not worth the high maintenance fee and not being able to curtail the increases to annual maintenance fees, is fading the value of my Marriott.   If others think the Marriott name is worth the high upfront purchase price and hefty maintenance fees, great!  I will rent from them.   Pam


----------



## Eric

To me, the way they charge thier commission is a non issue and very common and more importantly standard in the industry. Dumping the Pres of the HOA is yet another issue 





OCsun said:


> ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ERIC - "Ok, here we go again. Has that changed since you bought ? of course not. They have been doing it that way for 20 years and you decide now, thats not the way they should do it and you are mad. Amazing logic .... When you sold a house last year , the realtor got 5% of the selling price. This year they STILL get 5% even though the selling price is probably much lower. Lots of fees are based on percentages."
> 
> 
> Eric,
> 
> You are right!  I should have taken the time to investigate how Marriott charged for the use of their name – my mistake.  The comparison to a realtor,  is a good example of why Marriott’s method of charging for their management is outdated.  Most people have discovered you can obtain realtor services for less than 5%, if you shop around.
> I paid up front for the Marriott Brand and believed maintenance fees  would average  5% a year – another mistake I made.   Times have changed and so have I.  IMHO, the value of a discounted trading fee is not worth the high maintenance fee and not being able to curtail the increases to annual maintenance fees, is fading the value of my Marriott.   If others think the Marriott name is worth the high upfront purchase price and hefty maintenance fees, great!  I will rent from them.   Pam


----------



## marksue

There is proof that the building is defective.  Its all in the engineering report that Marriott and the board each refuse to release publicly.  I have seen the Marriott report and supports that the building was defective,  how else can they have corrosion onthe steel beaks due to the buildup of water and exposure to the elements, as stated int he report.  If the building was not defective, why has the board and Marriott refused to make the reports available.


----------



## nyreguy

If I was MVCI, I would be concerned about my reputation in the industry. If words gets out that owners are thinking of suing them, that would certainly not help their marketing efforts on their other projects including the Surf Club which is not 100% sold.

Besides the maintenance and management fee issue, there is all of the rents that they collect from the lobby stores on OUR property which they keep all of. And that includes the poolside bar and restaurant which they operate and do not pay any rent for. Sweet deal. Can you imagine how much less our maintenance fees would be if we collected the rent?

It's almost as if I built your house, sold it to you, but kept the right to rent out the garage to anyone that I want without paying you anything. I know that MVCI contributes to the common area maintenance of the Ocean Club but that is a drop in the ocean (pardon my pun).

Does this scenario bother anyone else?


----------



## timeos2

*Too commom and very legal (at least in the US)*



nyreguy said:


> If I was MVCI, I would be concerned about my reputation in the industry. If words gets out that owners are thinking of suing them, that would certainly not help their marketing efforts on their other projects including the Surf Club which is not 100% sold.
> 
> Besides the maintenance and management fee issue, there is all of the rents that they collect from the lobby stores on OUR property which they keep all of. And that includes the poolside bar and restaurant which they operate and do not pay any rent for. Sweet deal. Can you imagine how much less our maintenance fees would be if we collected the rent?
> 
> It's almost as if I built your house, sold it to you, but kept the right to rent out the garage to anyone that I want without paying you anything. I know that MVCI contributes to the common area maintenance of the Ocean Club but that is a drop in the ocean (pardon my pun).
> 
> Does this scenario bother anyone else?



You will find this at nearly every resort built since the 80's as it was common for the developer to grant themselves ongoing rights to "sales areas" with zero provisions for rent or any other type of required payment. And guess what? The clauses stand up as they are clealy included in the 400+ pages of sales disclosures everyone reads so carefully.  We fought that battle at two resorts and until we were able to negotiate - not force by courts edict - a different arrangement they could and would enforce the basically free use as they had originally granted themselves.  Again it is far more productive to go in with a reasonable compromise for this type of thing than a "feeling" that the dissenting group is 100% right in their interpretation and would win a court argument. In reality they are probably 50% right and that means the other side is 50% right - hmm, sounds like what a much less costly agreement might also come up with!  Assuming that the "good guys" (and who that really is depends on which  side you align with) will win more than half is foolish.  Paying to find that out can be extremely expensive but many have to learn the hard way.


----------



## colonelron

*The Good and Bad*

Hi:
My wife and I bought the timeshare at 10:00Pm while they only had a spot in the Marriott hotel and have used the timeshare since 1999 and will be using it next month.  The advantages we got from purchaseing the timeshare and other points have been, a free week in Amsterdam, a free week in Tel Aviv, two buisness class tickets to China, we exchanged one week in 2007 for Playa Andulza in Casa Del Sol Spain and one week in 2008 for Marbella Marriott time share in Casa Del Sol Spain.  

We certainly have gotten our money's worth from the time share.  Just as a note there is daily maid service and the staff in both places in Spain is definelty more accomadating and friendly.  Both timeshares are nicer than the Ocean Club and have multiple pools plus beach.  An example is that they printed a 20 page email for me and after signing the email they re-scanned it and emailed it to me so I could email back to the states and not have to spend money faxing it.  We tried to have an email printed last year with no success.  The Concierge told us not to go to Morrocco because there is no telling how long the boat takes and it is dirty and full of pick pockets and the like.

We have been going to Aruba for over 18 years.  The building the Ocean Club is in was exisiting and setting vacan for many years.  As a matter of fact a crane fell into the roof before the Marriott either bought or started construction.  

The Marriott is a large business and as we have learned in the last couple years only looking at how much the top echelon can put in their pocket.  The crap about the Aruba weather on the roof is just that.  The weather in Aruba has been the same forever.  It sounds like they knew about the caulking but didn't care.   The window fogging is a common problem in vinyl and aluminum windows because of the expansion and contraction breaks the seals and could occur again.  

Other timeshares in Aruba have had similiar dissagreements with management companies and have replaced them.  We cann't replace the Marriott but a strongly held owners association/group can and should force them into being more responsible.  Obviously Alan Cohen has a master list and I am sure we can get it to send emails to everyone and hopefully get a response so we would know what dircetion to take.  If there is not enough people who care and further action would most likely be fruitless.

As a owner we must have some rights to see a true financial picture of what is happening and I am sure there are accountants as owners that could look it over.

Another question is how many weeks and units does the Marriott still own and control over.  I have heard unofficially it is a minimum of 20% they rent and make profit on.  I feel that the owners should have this information.

The lost point is that Aruba is still a great vacation place and who really cares if the rooms have new sofas.  I requested washer and dryers in the rooms-much better than new sofas and cabinet fronts or double bowl vanites.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> There is proof that the building is defective.  Its all in the engineering report that Marriott and the board each refuse to release publicly.  I have seen the Marriott report and supports that the building was defective,  how else can they have corrosion onthe steel beaks due to the buildup of water and exposure to the elements, as stated int he report.  If the building was not defective, why has the board and Marriott refused to make the reports available.



Mark,

Just want to make sure I understand this. You have seen the engineering report, and Allan has not? And the report clearly states that the building was defective. Not the roof - the entire structure of the building.  It is a little confusing, because in the paragraph above you seem to be reaching a conclusion based on your reading of the report.


----------



## marksue

I do not know if Allan has seen it or not.  I saw it from another source and not sure how he got it.  Only Allan can say if he has seen it or not.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> I do not know if Allan has seen it or not.  I saw it from another source and not sure how he got it.  Only Allan can say if he has seen it or not.



Do you even read what you post from Allan? Here is from the e-mail he sent you.

 "*I have not *seen any final report from our consultants that our roof was not defective or met the original design specifications."

So, since he did not show you the report, you must have gotten from another source. So now you have two sources feeding you information that only the BOD or Marriott has access to? If so, I think you have missed your calling. This Ocean Club stuff is small potatoes. Get out there and figure out where Osama bin Laden is at.


----------



## lovearuba

*Marriott Owners*

Hi
I would like to hear from more owners, how do you really feel after reading Allan's letter.  Try to digest exactly what he is saying.  I am sure many of the owners that read this site were happy with Allan representing them.  Now you have heard from him directly and he gave you the truth.  

Do you plan to write to Marriott or have you already?  Do you plan to write to the board or have you already?  Do you plan to sign up for a vote to change the board or have you already?  I'm just interested in why you would choose one action over another.  

If you have decided to just throw the towel in and try and sell your unit, or if you choose to never buy or recommend Marriott again, I am also interested in hearing that.  Lastly, if you plan an sticking it out, have already paid your $1670 and cant wait for the next $700 bill around the corner and stick with Marriott, I am wondering what criteria you used to make that decision.  I do appreciate your candor.


----------



## dioxide45

marksue said:


> I would like to further explain my removal as President, but must inform you that The Board after removing me as President held a special meeting and passed a resolution (4 to 1) which made all information privy to the Board as confidential including all minutes, resolutions etc which cannot be divulged without prior written approval of the Board of Directors. All information that I had previously posted on the web site was immediately removed and any violation of this resolution, the Board has the right to sue the individual personally and seek monetary damages.  After passage of this resolution I made a motion that the resolution having been adopted be forwarded to owners and be posted on our web site.  My motion was not seconded nor commented on by any Board member.   Since I cannot share the resolution with you all the information I am sharing has been discussed an d shared with numerous owners previously.
> 
> I strongly feel that every owner has an equal right to know what is happening.  I do not understand what information that I as a Board member and Owner should have that you as a fellow Owner cannot be made aware of.  We all have an ownership and financial interest in the Aruba Ocean Club.



I think I can understand why the BOD took these actions. There was mention of a lawsuit. Any organization in a similar situation where they were being threatened with a lawsuit would take similar action. They quickly move to defense mode and that is exactly what happened here.


----------



## m61376

dioxide45 said:


> I think I can understand why the BOD took these actions. There was mention of a lawsuit. Any organization in a similar situation where they were being threatened with a lawsuit would take similar action. They quickly move to defense mode and that is exactly what happened here.



Unfortunately, I think you're right and, now that they are in a defensive posture I think making inroads and getting information is going to be MUCH more difficult. At this point, it is likely that Marriott will only release needed information if forced to by legal action. I think owners are now backed into a catch 22 situation, in which semi-amicable discussions are no longer tenable and in which the only way Marriott is going to release any information is if they are forced to do so.

It is unfortunate for all parties involved and, I think, a bad situation which can have more far reaching effects (certainly on OC owner morale, but setting precedents, etc.).


----------



## mnook

To the AOC Board...your post sounds just like the newsletter you have sent the members recently...there is no doubt in my mind that you are representing the Marriott Corporation and not the owners.  When is Marriott going to start paying for the space it uses to sell other properties.  I went upstairs and now see the floor plans for San Marco.  If Marriott paid rent for their sales office space, it would put a lot less burden on the timeshare owners.  That of course is addition to the windows, roof and other sub-standard work that was put into this building.  Quit making Marriott out like they are a bunch of saints because they are willing to pay 43 or 48% of the replacement costs on the roof...they should be paying for it all.


----------



## qlaval

I think that it is now obvious that the new BOD has been lying about many things now.

What bothers me the most is that the BOD is supposed to represent the owners interests first. I think that this is now more and more questionable to say the least.
If the new BOD think that what they are presently doing is in the best owners interest FINE. But tell us WHY and without lying. I just can't stand that they need to lie to achieve that.

One of their first big lie was release on the OC owners website itself on October 29, 2008.
Where they were denying any class action rumor and that everything was perfect under the sun. 
This was absolutely not the case...

Then when questioned about the president Mr. A. Cohen situation their answer was that it was part of a planned succession elaborate by the BOD and by Mr. Cohen himself!
Again another BIG lie...

If only the BOD reply was:
We the new BOD members have decided to push Mr. Cohen aside for the following reasons:
1- We think that his approach isn't....
2- To let him start a probable class action wasn't in the best...
3- etc...

NO they lied instead. Why?
Owners are not children, we don't need to be spoon feed.
Maybe the new BOD doesn't want the owners to decide by themselves?
Under the present situation it is very easy to think that they might already have an agenda.

The big question is, if they lied for the simple questions what about the rest?...

Also why are they keeping the owners in the dark?
Bylaws clearly stated that the minutes of all meetings should be available for inspection by members.
And now they just decide to take that democracy right to the toilet!
I understand that the BOD need to make decisions without the approval of owners but to hide those decisions is another thing...
If you hide yourself it is because you either want to protect yourself or you don't want others to know.
If the BOD is doing things right and lawfully they don't need the secrecy nor the protection.
As a director if you can't justify or stand by your decisions then don't take the job.
Taking decisions isn't a popularity contest it is a conclusion process after consideration.

It's the owners right to be OWNERS IN THEIR OWN RESORT!

Is Marriott behind all this? 
Just ask yourself who's interests are best served by all those lies and secrecy?
It's obvious that they want to keep the golden chick at all cost.

Will it backfire on them? 
The conditions to retake the power of the BOD are very difficult to meet.
Will the number of owners reached and convinced to act be enough?
Looks like Marriott take the guess that it won't.

Time will tell...

To the other Marriott resorts owners don't make the mistake to think that it cannot happen to you as well.

As for myself the Marriott experience has already left me with a sour taste!


----------



## marksue

GLaval,

And to clarify it is the board that threatned the lawsuit in Jan of 2008 not anything that was stated on this or any other blog.  I did post on this thread early on a copy of that suit document.  I saved a copy prior to them removing it fromthe website.  Just think how screwed we would be if that threat wasn't out there in january. Its too bad they forced Allan out cause I believe he would have continued the fight and gotten a fair shake.  I appreciate Allan writing his letter as it confirms what I and others have been saying.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> And to clarify it is the board that threatned the lawsuit in Jan of 2008* not anything that was stated on this or any other blog*.



Except for your post over on timeshareforums.com on Dec. 16, 2008

"This is far from old or dead, *there will be a class action suit filed * against Marriott for deceptive sales practices as well as to recover the costs for all repairs due to a defective building."

You seem to keep forgetting about that post.


----------



## marksue

I hav ent forgotten anything. I was respopnding to glaval post on the boards suit. Next time read what I am responding to versus your constant attacks.


----------



## Eric

[_Message deleted. Personal attacks are not permitted on these forums._ Dave M, BBS Moderator]


----------



## m61376

Eric said:


> [_Message deleted. Personal attacks are not permitted on these forums._ Dave M, BBS Moderator]



Despite being on a wonderful vacation, Dave just couldn't stay away  . He misses us as much as we miss him.
Sorry for getting off topic....


----------



## Luckybee

dioxide45 said:


> I think I can understand why the BOD took these actions. There was mention of a lawsuit. Any organization in a similar situation where they were being threatened with a lawsuit would take similar action. They quickly move to defense mode and that is exactly what happened here.



If you read the letter from Allan it is obvious that it was the ORIGINAL board who was talking about a lawsuit before Mark or anyone else got involved.


----------



## Luckybee

qlaval said:


> I think that it is now obvious that the new BOD has been lying about many things now.
> 
> What bothers me the most is that the BOD is supposed to represent the owners interests first. I think that this is now more and more questionable to say the least.
> If the new BOD think that what they are presently doing is in the best owners interest FINE. But tell us WHY and without lying. I just can't stand that they need to lie to achieve that.
> 
> One of their first big lie was release on the OC owners website itself on October 29, 2008.
> Where they were denying any class action rumor and that everything was perfect under the sun.
> This was absolutely not the case...
> 
> Then when questioned about the president Mr. A. Cohen situation their answer was that it was part of a planned succession elaborate by the BOD and by Mr. Cohen himself!
> Again another BIG lie...
> 
> If only the BOD reply was:
> We the new BOD members have decided to push Mr. Cohen aside for the following reasons:
> 1- We think that his approach isn't....
> 2- To let him start a probable class action wasn't in the best...
> 3- etc...
> 
> NO they lied instead. Why?
> Owners are not children, we don't need to be spoon feed.
> Maybe the new BOD doesn't want the owners to decide by themselves?
> Under the present situation it is very easy to think that they might already have an agenda.
> 
> The big question is, if they lied for the simple questions what about the rest?...
> 
> Also why are they keeping the owners in the dark?
> Bylaws clearly stated that the minutes of all meetings should be available for inspection by members.
> And now they just decide to take that democracy right to the toilet!
> I understand that the BOD need to make decisions without the approval of owners but to hide those decisions is another thing...
> If you hide yourself it is because you either want to protect yourself or you don't want others to know.
> If the BOD is doing things right and lawfully they don't need the secrecy nor the protection.
> As a director if you can't justify or stand by your decisions then don't take the job.
> Taking decisions isn't a popularity contest it is a conclusion process after consideration.
> 
> It's the owners right to be OWNERS IN THEIR OWN RESORT!
> 
> Is Marriott behind all this?
> Just ask yourself who's interests are best served by all those lies and secrecy?
> It's obvious that they want to keep the golden chick at all cost.
> 
> Will it backfire on them?
> The conditions to retake the power of the BOD are very difficult to meet.
> Will the number of owners reached and convinced to act be enough?
> Looks like Marriott take the guess that it won't.
> 
> Time will tell...
> 
> To the other Marriott resorts owners don't make the mistake to think that it cannot happen to you as well.
> 
> As for myself the Marriott experience has already left me with a sour taste!




As an owner I agree with everything you have said. Esp the part about the sour taste I now have as a result of what Ive seen throughout this game of smoke and mirrors the current board(save and except Allan)is now playing.


----------



## Luckybee

lovearuba said:


> Hi
> I would like to hear from more owners, how do you really feel after reading Allan's letter.  Try to digest exactly what he is saying.  I am sure many of the owners that read this site were happy with Allan representing them.  Now you have heard from him directly and he gave you the truth.
> 
> Do you plan to write to Marriott or have you already?  Do you plan to write to the board or have you already?  Do you plan to sign up for a vote to change the board or have you already?  I'm just interested in why you would choose one action over another.
> 
> If you have decided to just throw the towel in and try and sell your unit, or if you choose to never buy or recommend Marriott again, I am also interested in hearing that.  Lastly, if you plan an sticking it out, have already paid your $1670 and cant wait for the next $700 bill around the corner and stick with Marriott, I am wondering what criteria you used to make that decision.  I do appreciate your candor.



I've added my name to the list that Mark has been putting together. Call me cynical, but I haven't written to Marriott or the board(isnt it the same thing now ? . Just mho but I think we have already heard how Marriott feels about this whole thing through the "board" correspondence.  I think it is a complete waste of time at this point to write but if it works for those who have, or will then more power to them. Havent paid the MF's yet, probably will since the last day is tommorrow. Have cancelled our plans to buy 4-8 more weeks(and these were very solid plans), have also talked a few friends out of purchasing and previewing. I will not refer anyone further with the referral program, wouldnt be doing them a favour. Wouldnt sell now, that would be a losing proposition, but likely will in a few years(never thought i'd say that  , but I just dont see the point in keeping a few weeks when the original plan was to put together enough weeks to spend 2 or 3 months in Aruba each year in retirement. Looking at other(more expensive options now 
 ), but ones where we have some control...lol


----------



## lovearuba

*luckbee*

Hi
I understand your decision not to support the letter writing campaign,  I initiated one of them because of all the grief Mark was getting on this site.  It was an effort to make sure we gave the board an option to reply to our concerns and to make sure other owners knew we were being reasonable first.  Unfortunately that didnt work.  The next step was to go directly to Marriott and I'm not sure enough time has actually lapsed that would allow Marriott's president to digest everything he's received and to have the opportunity to get the information he needs to address it.  Thats assumming he will address it.  If he gets the information and he is an honest person he will look into it.  The next option is to remove the board.  We really don't have much choice and it will be a hard process to get the needed signatures but most of us that are going to Aruba will meet other owners there and we will share the information.

I absolutely have no issue with wandering around the sales area and filling in those folks that look like they are headed into or out of a timeshare presentation.  They may be purchasing a surf club and my experience is that word of mouth is a powerful tool. Have a great day and I am so sorry that your plans to purchase additional units to allow you to spend 2-3 months there a year have changed.


----------



## marksue

Lucky,  I certainly understand your feelings and I share them.  I had always considered buying more TS over time, but after this experience I am done.  As soon as the market turns around I will be selling my Surf Club unit and if things don't turn around with the OCean club I will sell those as well.  It would be cheaper for me to rent a unit then to continue to pay the fees.

I know when I was down in Aruba, I was speaking with people who were thinking of buying, and after listening to what was going on with the Ocean Club they decided not to buy in the surf club.  Word of mouth is very powerful.  I know owners who jsut got back and they talked people out of buying.  There is also a group going down over the next month or so that have thier own plans for when they get there. Should be quite interesting.


----------



## m61376

marksue said:


> Lucky,  I certainly understand your feelings and I share them.  I had always considered buying more TS over time, but after this experience I am done.  As soon as the market turns around I will be selling my Surf Club unit and if things don't turn around with the OCean club I will sell those as well.  It would be cheaper for me to rent a unit then to continue to pay the fees.
> 
> I know when I was down in Aruba, I was speaking with people who were thinking of buying, and after listening to what was going on with the Ocean Club they decided not to buy in the surf club.  Word of mouth is very powerful.  I know owners who jsut got back and they talked people out of buying.  There is also a group going down over the next month or so that have thier own plans for when they get there. Should be quite interesting.


While I understand your frustration and anger, do you really think it is in anyone's best interest to start a Marriott Aruba hate campaign, so to speak? I am not sure what positive benefits you will reap by telling people they'd be crazy to buy at either the Ocean Club or the Surf Club. 

While I am not getting into an Ocean Club versus Surf Club controversy here, I think the distinction is important. What is going on at the OC impacts the SC in so far as it impacts all Marriott owners, but the construction issues and even the BOD personalities are an Ocean Club issue. These resorts are two separate entities.

I don't think it is in any Ocean Club owner's best interests to engage in a bad-mouthing campaign that makes it so no one wants to own/purchase at the OC and, as a Surf Club owner, I have to admit that I'm not thrilled with a campaign to discourage people from buying. Word of mouth can help destroy a great, healthy resort- something which I personally don't think is in anybody's best interests. 

I don't think this is the way to advance your cause.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Learning Through Vicarious Experience.*




timeos2 said:


> Paying to find that out can be extremely expensive but many have to learn the hard way.


Not everything has to be learned the hard way. 

One major serious advantage of TUG-BBS participation is learning things easily that others in the past have already found out the hard way. 

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


----------



## marksue

I certainly am not making it a Ocean Club Surf Club thing.  I would not recommend Marriott Timeshare to anyone based on this experience.  So if someone asks me about my experience with Marriott timeshare I will share it.  What they choose to do is up to them.

I know many people have nothing but positive things to say, and if I didn’t own the Ocean club I would have as well, but the experience prevents me from recommending Marriott TS.


----------



## lovearuba

*advancing our case*

Hi
I do think sharing the information here has advanced our case and I think the more folks that know about it the better chance we have at getting Marriott to address it.

The type of information I share with folks on purchasing through Marriott is factual. You can call it badmouthing or you can call it disclosing information that buyers should have before they make a purchase.  I want to know what buyer would willingly buy a timeshare knowing that it cost more to pay for the maintenance fee than it cost to rent it on the retail market.


----------



## Luckybee

marksue said:


> There is also a group going down over the next month or so that have thier own plans for when they get there. Should be quite interesting.




Im aware of this as well and I agree it will be very interesting


----------



## Luckybee

m61376 said:


> While I understand your frustration and anger, do you really think it is in anyone's best interest to start a Marriott Aruba hate campaign, so to speak? I am not sure what positive benefits you will reap by telling people they'd be crazy to buy at either the Ocean Club or the Surf Club.
> 
> While I am not getting into an Ocean Club versus Surf Club controversy here, I think the distinction is important. What is going on at the OC impacts the SC in so far as it impacts all Marriott owners, but the construction issues and even the BOD personalities are an Ocean Club issue. These resorts are two separate entities.
> 
> I don't think it is in any Ocean Club owner's best interests to engage in a bad-mouthing campaign that makes it so no one wants to own/purchase at the OC and, as a Surf Club owner, I have to admit that I'm not thrilled with a campaign to discourage people from buying. Word of mouth can help destroy a great, healthy resort- something which I personally don't think is in anybody's best interests.
> 
> I don't think this is the way to advance your cause.



I understand your feelings, but that said do you really think that what is happening at the OC cant just as easily happen at the SC with Marriott controlling the board in both places? Im sorry but I have had friends who were looking at purchasing SC, and I dont want it on my conscience if they do at this point(at least not until I see how this pans out). For years I have always told those who were skeptical about TS and the preview program is that "dont think of it like a stereotypical timeshare, this is Marriott, and its different ". Had it not been I would have never bought, now it isnt and so I cant refer others nor recommend the purchase to my friends. I wouldnt be a friend if I did.


----------



## m61376

I agree that what is happening at the OC affects all Marriott owners in that it sets a lousy precedent across the board. I don't feel it necessarily impacts the SC more than any other Marriott timeshare though.

I do think that while what is happening is certainly egregious and very unfair to OC owners, it is at least in part an atypical situation in that the OC, unlike most other Marriott timeshare properties, was not originally built as a Marriott timeshare structure and evidently the constructions standards were sub par. So I personally wouldn't condemn Marriott timeshares across the board because of what is happening at the Ocean Club.

I may be in the minority here, but I don't see much good coming from a badmouthing campaign. Why erode the value of expensive weeks? I just don't see that as helping your cause and it will likely just further alienate the Board. 

Please understand I totally agree with you in principle and appreciate your frustration and anger. I'm just expressing my opinion (for what it is or isn't worth) on method. I truly hope you make headway and wish you the best of luck.


----------



## viejoverde

*BOD in timeshares*

hi, i am new here and have just a few observations after reading this thread on Marriott's board actions. I have owned 4 weeks in three different resorts on the last 20 years, now i only have one left. 
timesharing has certainly changed during that time, and not for the better, at the beginning it certainly made sense to own since it was a lot cheaper than paying for a week's lodging of vacationing. Today it makes absolutely no sense with the present maintenance fees charged, anyone can find a weeks lodging almost anywhere in the country for far less than most maintenance fees, and that is even not counting any exchange fees.
Most BOD if not all are allowed to charge "special assessments" to the association members without any approval from them, in the case of timeshare BOD i don't know if those directors are from the developer or from the owners, i guess it depends on how the declaration papers for the association were filed, the only way to find out is to get a hold of those papers and read them.
the ugly bottom line is that we are seeing more and more "special assessments" being charged to owners all over the place and the only solution as i said is to read the contract that we all signed at the time, something unfortunately we didn't do.


----------



## tlwmkw

*m61376- I agree with you*

The old saying is keep your friends close and your enemies closer.  In this case you have already pushed Marriott away by threatening lawsuits so you will have to do the best you can in the circumstances.  The goal should be to get the building fixed properly so that you don't have more of these expenses in the future and can either sell once it all dies down and the OC is back in good standing, or use the resort for vacations.  Hopefully you'll be able to get Marriott to cover much of the expense but I wouldn't hold my breath for that.  Even the lawyers that Allen quotes in his letters state that the situation is open to interpretation which means it will be hard to prove one way or another.

I did note that Allen states that the board shut down communication after all the threats started- this shows that the threats of lawsuits were the cause of the shut down.  Also it sounds as if Allen himself initiated a lot of the talk of lawsuits- maybe he should have negotiated a little more carefully.  This is a good lesson to learn- subtlety is best in this situation.  Certainly you shouldn't sit back and just take it but do try to compromise- you won't get everything you want but something is certainly better than nothing.

I have noticed some people saying they are considering not paying MF's.  That would be a bad idea because once this all resolves (and it will) then you will not longer be in good standing and won't be able to participate in it or even use your timeshare.


----------



## timeos2

*Not our goal*



viejoverde said:


> timesharing has certainly changed during that time, and not for the better, at the beginning it certainly made sense to own since it was a lot cheaper than paying for a week's lodging of vacationing. Today it makes absolutely no sense with the present maintenance fees charged, anyone can find a weeks lodging almost anywhere in the country for far less than most maintenance fees, and that is even not counting any exchange fees.



If all you want is an inexpensive place to stay and are willing to live with a hotel room type then timesharing isn't a great choice. We didn't get into it for that. We like the upscale, larger, often multiple bedroom/bath units that timesharing offers while giving us access for a reasonable cost.  We don't find mere hotel rooms - regardless of cost or quality - to meet that requirement.  We also got in and own at places we love to go back to! We like to know we have a right to go to OUR resort and maybe date /unit (depending on how the resort is set up to operate - some float) rather than having to plan to contact third parties for rentals or reservations.  We never purchased for exchange as the main use (although we get to choose from many resorts by using our points based timeshare systems) thus we mostly avoid the costs and hassles of those systems. Timesharing has worked out very well for our purposes. Marriott resorts tend to be some of the nicer ones and, until the recent value meltdown in all of timeshare/real estate, held a better resale value than most.  They still hold an attraction for quality experience that not all timeshares offer.  But it is the overall operation of the timeshare NOT that name that really matters. 



viejoverde said:


> Most BOD if not all are allowed to charge "special assessments" to the association members without any approval from them, in the case of timeshare BOD i don't know if those directors are from the developer or from the owners, i guess it depends on how the declaration papers for the association were filed, the only way to find out is to get a hold of those papers and read them.
> the ugly bottom line is that we are seeing more and more "special assessments" being charged to owners all over the place and the only solution as i said is to read the contract that we all signed at the time, something unfortunately we didn't do.



Yes, resorts can and do have special assessments. Hopefully they are limited to true emergency type needs not just bad management / planning.  But even if they do need assessments for the wrong reasons the goal should be to improve the resort for the owners and thus the guests as well. It can certainly  be expected that the Board/Management minimize the impact and get the most for every dollar (and paying a 10-15% overhead to management and being limited to only contractors THEY approve is NOT, IMO, getting the most for your improvement dollar) but the need to have an assessment cannot always be avoided.  In the case of the OC it appears things were underfunded and neglected (both all too common with developer rather than owner control) and now the costs there have come due. I certainly think the owners speaking out here have legitimate concerns about the overall costs but talking of lawsuits or cutting the scope of work (rather than the costs of ACCOMPLISHING that much needed work) are counter productive.  But it will somehow work out in the end and hopefully both the owners and whoever ends up as the acting Board and ongoing management will be happy with the results.  If it were my resort I'd have a management change on the list rather than blindly assuming we MUST have the Marriott name. But that's just me and my view of the tactics  Marriott employs to seemingly keep the resorts they manage "in line".  I don't care for it myself and I'd like to see it challenged regularly.  The "value" of the Marriott name has been getting diluted for years vs the cost they demand to keep it. Again just MHO.   

Make no mistake the owners at OC have real concerns.  I hope they focus on each (the management, the Board and costs) until they are resolved and don't end up fighting never ending battles that hurt them as resort owners and the resort reputation. No one wins if that occurs.


----------



## dioxide45

Luckybee said:


> If you read the letter from Allan it is obvious that it was the ORIGINAL board who was talking about a lawsuit before Mark or anyone else got involved.



I wasn't talking about the board filing lawsuit against Marriott. There have been threats by owners of filing lawsuit against the board. This is why the board has gone in to secret.


----------



## Skippy1

marksue said:


> To all Marriott Ocean Club owners.  I am not sure if you are aware but you are about to be hit with 2 assessments that could be $1,000 for each of the next 2 years.  The reason is Marriott has to completely replace the roof and some of the supports due to poor construction.
> 
> How many of you realize that the building was bought by Marriott after it was partially completed?  Of course you were never told that.  Did you ever wonder why when ever it rained the building flooded?  It seems there were problems to the roof from day one and Marriott ignored the problems until they could get the owners to pay a portion of the repairs.  Marriott is requiring the Owners to pay a major portion of the repairs.  So therefore the roof repair and regular refurbishing projects will costs us additional funds over our already high maintenance.
> 
> I have been in touch with the board and have gotten the details of what is taking place.  A board member said to me if you find a lawyer who would like to take on a class action suit there would be many people who would be willing to be part of the suit.
> 
> I have been in touch with Marriott but they have refused to give me a satisfactory response except to agree to what I have mentioned here.
> 
> If you are unhappy about this you should contact customer care.  Maybe if enough people speak up Marriott will do the right thing.
> 
> Let me know if you are interested in pursuing a class action suit against Marriott.
> 
> 
> 
> Mark



would love to, Pease keep us informed.


----------



## Luckybee

dioxide45 said:


> I wasn't talking about the board filing lawsuit against Marriott. There have been threats by owners of filing lawsuit against the board. This is why the board has gone in to secret.



Sorry but I (and many other owners I suspect) dont agree with you. The "board" (lol....I guess I should say the MM controlled portion of the board)began doing things in a secretive manner prior to any threats of lawsuit by any specific owner. 
  As an aside, and I am digressing here,  I have to say that the actions by Marriott here really shouldnt surprise me. Their corporate culture does tend to be one of let your customer know as little as possible. A number of years ago while we were in Aruba there was a major power blackout. This ended up going on for days. The govt was providing info to the various resorts as to what they expected ie rotating power etc, lack of A/c etc.. While dh and I were staying at the OC we were speaking each day to the front desk of the Hyatt(we've stayed there many times) who were advising their customers of the daily updates, which often werent good. Marriott (both hotel and OC) were advising "we expect the power to be on soon". Same record each day even when they knew different. The major difference was that the Hyatt(and other properties on the island) was offering free nights to the hotel guests , Marriott wasnt . Part way through Marriott did get one of the generators being used for building the surf club to power the oc. There were still many unhapppy hotel guests who were still not being told what Marriott knew. I specifically asked a manager(there were a couple of cocktail parties for hotel guest and owners as a Marriott "goodwill gesture") about the info we had gleaned and his response at the time was and this is a direct quote"how did you find out about that, no one was allowed to provide that info, who told you, we didnt want to worry our guests?" What amazed us the most was that he was entirely unapologetic for the lack of info , rather more concerned about heads rolling if an employee dare tell the guests the truth


----------



## marksue

Having been at the annual meeting the board was already in stealth mode.  Any owner who asked a question that challenged teh board was answered by Marriott.  Each board member would pass the question on to Troy or Dirk, and then we got roundabout answers.   Even when Allan started to answer questions, Troy or Dirk would interupt and say let me answer that.


----------



## lovearuba

*Hoping this is a good sign*

Just received this email from Marriott


At the 2009 Annual Meeting, Members will elect two (2) directors to serve on the Association Board of Directors. Any Owner desiring to become a candidate for election to the Board of Directors must complete and submit a Volunteer Form to the Association.

To obtain a Volunteer Form please click here, or contact Gail Sahit-Mahabeer via e-mail at gail.mahabeer@marriotthotels.com or by calling 011-297-520-6089. 

Best Regards,



General Manager

It was for Marriott Aruba Ocean club owners


----------



## AOC LOVER

*Suddenly there are 2 board vacancies*

Does anyone know why there are 2 vacancies?  Are two board members leaving?


----------



## billymach4

May just be that 2 seats are up for re-election. There may not be 2 departures.


----------



## marksue

There are 2 seats up becuase Frank Knox's term is up as is Allans. Allan will not run due to term limits, which I think should be overturned.  If Frank is running for relection then we need to start a grass root effort to keep him from winning.

My concern is there may be owners who will want to run, but the nomination committee which includes Marriott will prevent owners who are vocally against what is occuring from having thier names submitted for the positions.  We will see what happens as I know of a few members who are putting thier names up for nomination.


----------



## LARRY T

Can someone please direct to me to where I can find all these owners that are looking to sell their units -- preferably 2 bedroom platinum units. Thanks


----------



## marksue

*Upcoming Board meeting*

If any of you are in Aruba next week or know someone that is - I understand the Board is planning a phone board meeting for next Tuesday January 27th, in the evening at  8 p.m. - It might be of interest for any owners to sit in on the conference call.  The last call was witnessed by Ken Berkowitz and there was a great deal revealed about our boards actions in that call.

Information on the meeting location should be posted in Aruba or you can ask Corey the GM.  It has to be open to owners so any owner down in Aruba is eligible to attend.


----------



## Sunbum

*Larry T*



LARRY T said:


> Can someone please direct to me to where I can find all these owners that are looking to sell their units -- preferably 2 bedroom platinum units. Thanks



There are not alot for sale. (2bdrm plat.) There are 3 or 4 on www.redweek.com. There are 4 on http://www.arubaoceanclub.com/pages/resales.html
There might be a dozen on the market in total.


----------



## MikeM132

This is not intended to hijack any thread. I am at the Ocean Club now. Never been here (or Aruba) before. You owners may have issues with Marriott, the HOA, etc. but you sure have a great place here. 
Oh, btw, I am on first floor with probably the worst view in the place. I could care less. It's still nice.


----------



## Sunbum

Thanks MikeM. I agree


----------



## lovearuba

*Mike*

You are right, we do have the best resort on the island.  We just don't want to have to pay such high maintenance fees.


----------



## esitt

*Marriott Aruba Ocean Club*

I would like to get onto the Board of directors so I can see what is going on first hand.
I am in the Real Estate Business and a developer as well.
I know the tricks of the trade!
I also have a few hundred owners who would vote for me.
How do I go about it?


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Forget Attracting Individual Voters.  Find Out Who Votes The Proxies.*




esitt said:


> How do I go about it?


Find out who votes the proxies & get that person to back you. 

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


----------



## london

*Proxies*



AwayWeGo said:


> Find out who votes the proxies & get that person to back you.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



Good point Alan, who on the BOD votes the proxies.

Over 650 posts on this subject. Maintenance fees will always be an issue at resorts.

The costs to keep nice resorts in top notch shape will alway be on the increase.

We do not mind paying MF of $800.00, provided we get value for the money.


----------



## marksue

From what I have been told there is a gorup that is considered the nominating committee..  This committee does consit of Mariott Personnel.  Seems interesting that Marriott would have a say as to who can run for the owners board.

As ofr the Maintenance fees, it is what is happening and what has happened to cause a 35% yoy increase as well as the 2 assessments.  No on objects to paying the MF.  What we want is realistic fee increases.  We want Marriott to step up and take responsibility for the defective building they sold the owners and to cover the costs the owners have laid out ove the last 10 years to repair the damage caused by the defective building.

We want Marriott to pay a fair rate for utilizing the OC property.  Why should the increase in electricity and labor costs increase the amount paid to manage the porperty.  Marriott is performing a service what is the cost of that service.  Did the cost of the service jump 35% yoy i doubt it.

We need to have board members that have the chutpah to stand up to Marriott and fight the battle for the owners.


----------



## billymach4

esitt said:


> I would like to get onto the Board of directors so I can see what is going on first hand.
> I am in the Real Estate Business and a developer as well.
> I know the tricks of the trade!
> I also have a few hundred owners who would vote for me.
> How do I go about it?



I am not an owner at AOC. However you come here on the scene with one post, and claim you have all of these credentials? Maybe so. You need to be more persuasive than one post and all of this backing. 

Real name an location would be a start. Anyone can put up a shingle and say I am Trump Jr?

If you knew so much about Real Estate you would not even ask "How to go about it"


----------



## ecwinch

billymach4 said:


> If you knew so much about Real Estate you would not even ask "How to go about it"



point......


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> Seems interesting that Marriott would have a say as to who can run for the owners board.



Think about. If the CEO of Wyndham was to buy a week, should they let him run for the BOD. Do you know they have precluded anyone from running?  Sorry, I do not see the bogeyman here.



marksue said:


> Why should the increase in electricity and labor costs increase the amount paid to manage the porperty.  Marriott is performing a service what is the cost of that service.  Did the cost of the service jump 35% yoy i doubt it.



Because it directs impacts their operating costs and the cost to maintain the brand in that area. What do you suggest they use to value their services? In a fixed fee/profit environment, their profit margin erodes over time, and they assume undesirable risk expense. I want a healthy partner, not one that is looking to cut corners to maintain profit margins.


----------



## lovearuba

*ecwinch*

Hi ECWINCH,
I am confused, are you Eric or just quoting him.


----------



## marksue

ecwinch said:


> Because it directs impacts their operating costs and the cost to maintain the brand in that area. What do you suggest they use to value their services? In a fixed fee/profit environment, their profit margin erodes over time, and they assume undesirable risk expense. I want a healthy partner, not one that is looking to cut corners to maintain profit margins.



No one is saying they shouldnt get increases over time, even in a fixed cost contract, but why should thier fees go up becuase we are having to pay higher fees due to Marriott's inability to build a solid building.  Many service contracts are written as fixed fee with periodic increases so they remain profitable, but it is a set amount.  No reason Marriotts contract couldn't be written the same way.  Whats wrong with fixed fee and cost of living increase.  Certainly wouldn't amount to 35% increase in 1 year and almost 50% over 2 years.


----------



## MikeM132

I went to the "owners meeting" last night. The GM basically said there are very vocal groups making a mountain out of a mole hill. He said some issues such as the defective paint were paid out of warranty. They made a serious attempt to diffuse this issue, but were later cornered by owners concerned over all the expenses. I also was part of a conversation regarding the "week 3" group (last week). This group has done substantial damage at Ocean and Surf Club. This year was better, but the group is billed for their damage and they are not passed on to other owners. They said they itemize additional staff/security, too, and this is paid by the week 3 group. A lot of concerned owners last night. The GM had his hands full. Owners meeting was outside near the pool bar. Free wine (not whine!) and little (tiny) sandwiches. I just went to see if these issues came up....they did, but one-on-one with the GM, not in the public part of the meeting.


----------



## marksue

Of course the GM will say that.  He is part of the problem.  He is a Marriott employee and all questions from owners go to him and he answers them.  Gee I wonder what kind of answers are given to the owners.  Marriott has purposely changed the format of the owners meetings to prevent a group discussion on the issues.  Previously there would be 1 big meeting to answer questions, now they don't wan't the entrie group to hear all answers.  A part of the lack of transparency that has over taken the OC.


----------



## sullco

*Marriott is a tough and, sometimes, ethically challenged company*

How many of you remember the class action suit a long time ago when Marriott launched the Courtyard by Marriott brand through investment partnerships?  They completely overstated the occupancy, Average Daily Rates, expenses, etc., bamboozled thousands of investors in their partnerships, and eventually went through a very costly settlement.

Despite their reputation, do not lose sight of the fact that they are (land) sharks at their core.


----------



## lovearuba

*week 3 group?*

HI Mike
What is the "week 3" group (last week) reference related to?  Was this a group of timeshare owners who damaged their own resort? I would be curious since I do go their and the last thing I want to worry about is security.


----------



## qlaval

lovearuba said:


> HI Mike
> What is the "week 3" group (last week) reference related to?  .....



See the following link: http://www.aruba-bb.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=66820


----------



## FlyerBobcat

qlaval said:


> See the following link: http://www.aruba-bb.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=66820




Yikes... that's almost as bad as trying to re-read THIS entire Aruba OC thread!:ignore:


----------



## tlwmkw

I was interested to hear about Aruba week 3.  This is something that anyone considering a winter week in Aruba would want to know about.  Sounds as if these people have no manners and treat everyone else very badly.  Is it just the Marriott resorts that they take over or other resorts too?

More to the point of this thread- are they owners and what do they think of the assessments and increases in MF's?  Would be interesting to know since they seem to have a lot of clout at the resort.  Marksue and loveAruba you should try to contact this group.


----------



## lovearuba

*week 3 group*

Wow, I followed the thread to the aruba forum and found it entertaining as many of you find this thread.  I also found it really disturbing that Marriott allows the bad behavior to affect other people staying at the resort.  I will have to remember never to book week 3.


----------



## SueDonJ

tlwmkw said:


> More to the point of this thread- are they owners and what do they think of the assessments and increases in MF's?  Would be interesting to know since they seem to have a lot of clout at the resort.  Marksue and loveAruba you should try to contact this group.



In that thread it says that they own "a ton" of weeks at both Aruba properties and that's why Marriott lets them get away with taking over the whole place and running amok.  Considering that they pay over and above their ownership dues for extra things like trash pick-up, damage repair, elevator operators, public rooms for meal prep and serving, etc..., I'd guess that they couldn't care less about increases in annual dues or special assessments.

Marksue or loveAruba, if you do contact them can you ask how much extra they pay to override the Room Maximum Occupancy set by Marriott?  That's the one that amazes and annoys me.  The rest are extras that we could all theoretically ask for and receive, but I've never heard of anyone getting a special exemption to exceed the occupancy limits.


----------



## esitt

You can feel free to look me up at www.sittasset.com
I did use my real name. Eddie Sitt.
I don't appreciate the attitude, I am looking to help out.
If everyone has your disposition of shoot first and then ask questions then we are not going to get very far.
I thought that we were all part of a team with common goals.
"To make sure the resort is beautiful, and money is spent wisely and honestly."
This is not a business, it is a vacation resort. I want to make sure that someone is not making it their business!


----------



## SpikeMauler

esitt said:


> You can feel free to look me up at www.sittasset.com
> I did use my real name. Eddie Sitt.
> I don't appreciate the attitude, I am looking to help out.
> If everyone has your disposition of shoot first and then ask questions then we are not going to get very far.
> I thought that we were all part of a team with common goals.
> "To make sure the resort is beautiful, and money is spent wisely and honestly."
> This is not a business, it is a vacation resort. I want to make sure that someone is not making it their business!



Judging from his website, Mr.Sitt looks like he would be more than qualified for a board position. Maybe someone should talk to him.


----------



## Eric

He does seem like he would be a great asset to Ocean Club. It sounds like you guys/gals could use someone with diplomacy and that much experience. 





SpikeMauler said:


> Judging from his website, Mr.Sitt looks like he would be more than qualified for a board position. Maybe someone should talk to him.


----------



## BobG7734

Wow...just read through the week 3 link on the Aruba site (not quite as teadious as the "rip off" thread)!  I will never go there that week to be subjected to what has been described...sound like that is where the Surf Club owners should be directing their efforts.


----------



## lovearuba

*SueDonJ*

Hi
I am not sure why you got the impression that I would want to contact the folks in the group for week 3.  I was curious about what it was from another poster and asked about it.  I have not interest in speaking with them and just hope I never book that week because they don't sound too respectful of the resort and it really could damper my vacation.


----------



## billymach4

esitt said:


> You can feel free to look me up at www.sittasset.com
> I did use my real name. Eddie Sitt.
> I don't appreciate the attitude, I am looking to help out.
> If everyone has your disposition of shoot first and then ask questions then we are not going to get very far.
> I thought that we were all part of a team with common goals.
> "To make sure the resort is beautiful, and money is spent wisely and honestly."
> This is not a business, it is a vacation resort. I want to make sure that someone is not making it their business!



Ed, 

I think we all agree that you should have listed your affiliation with your 1st thread. We sometimes get shills here touting knowledge about TS's and they turn out to be salespeople with their own agenda. Apologize if I came across like a heavy last time. 

Welcome to Tug. 

Anyway I am a Marriott owner but not at AOC. I think Marksue has a cause here and he does need help. You should speak to Mark directly for assistance.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> Hi
> I am not sure why you got the impression that I would want to contact the folks in the group for week 3.  I was curious about what it was from another poster and asked about it.  I have not interest in speaking with them and just hope I never book that week because they don't sound too respectful of the resort and it really could damper my vacation.



Oh my, I can see how I confused you, sorry about that!  If you look at post #682 (two above mine) tlwmkw wrote, "_More to the point of this thread- are they owners and what do they think of the assessments and increases in MF's? Would be interesting to know since they seem to have a lot of clout at the resort. Marksue and loveAruba you should try to contact this group._"

I took those words as light sarcasm and responded in kind.  I really don't expect that you or Mark would want to be in contact with any group who would ruin a vacation for others as this group seems to do, but I was trying to follow the train of thought from that post.  Again, I am sorry if I offended in any way.  Good luck to you in avoiding that week - I'd be noting it, too, if I read about similar bad stuff at my resort.


----------



## modoaruba

*I got the fix*

How about letting week 3 patrons have a roof party.
Then they can have it fixed.
Everyone happy!!!


----------



## icydog

esitt said:


> You can feel free to look me up at www.sittasset.com
> I did use my real name. Eddie Sitt.
> I don't appreciate the attitude, I am looking to help out.
> If everyone has your disposition of shoot first and then ask questions then we are not going to get very far.
> I thought that we were all part of a team with common goals.
> "To make sure the resort is beautiful, and money is spent wisely and honestly."
> This is not a business, it is a vacation resort. I want to make sure that someone is not making it their business!




I'm duly impressed. Who knew that Tug would have such a magnate of business on their BBS. I am not using sarcasm, since that seems to be running rampant on this thread, and I am really in awe of Mr Sitt's accomplishments.


----------



## icydog

qlaval said:


> See the following link: http://www.aruba-bb.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=66820



This was such an interesting read. Some of it was blown out of proportion with remarks on using equipment on the sabbath and all, but most was downright instructive on how not to vacation and how to avoid following the rules. I am dismayed that Marriott allows rooms to be stuffed. No wonder the beach and the pools are overrun.


----------



## marksue

So the board had thier meeting on Tuesday. I heard from an owner who went to attend the meeting.  He was told by Corey that the meeting would be starting in an hour but that he really didn't need to be there since all they were going to do was discuss the date of the next owners meeting.  

Why was Corey who works for MArriott trying to talk an owner out of attending a board meeting. Is this a case that the board did not want any owner to share what occurs in the meeting.  It is time for all board meetings to be open to any owner regardless if they are in Aruba or not to be able to listen in to the meeting.

THis lack of transparency and a Marriott employee talking an owner out of attending the meeting is getting out of hand and needs to be stopped.  

If this call was about the meeting date, is the board going to try and change the date of the October meeting to keep those owners who normally attend the meeting from raising issues again?   They sent out the nomination forms early, so i bet they have a plan to move the meeting to an earlier time frame.  Let's see what happens, but I am willing to bet we hear that the meeting is moved up.

Since the annual meeting is a discussion of the upcoming MF, if they do hold the meeting early, how can they accuratly forecast the MF.  

Well lets see what happens


----------



## marksue

Eddie has a great background and could be an asset to the cause and the board.  I feel his writing on here will prevent him from getting nominated.  I have a feeling the board will nominate people they know and who agree with them and Marriott, and anyone who has been vocal against them will not get past the nomination committee.  

I challenge the board to allow all people who wish to be on the board be submitted to the owners for a vote.  Let the owners choose who they want, not have the board choose who should be on the board.  Does the board have the GUTS to do this?


----------



## Luckybee

marksue said:


> Eddie has a great background and could be an asset to the cause and the board.  I feel his writing on here will prevent him from getting nominated.  I have a feeling the board will nominate people they know and who agree with them and Marriott, and anyone who has been vocal against them will not get past the nomination committee.
> 
> I challenge the board to allow all people who wish to be on the board be submitted to the owners for a vote.  Let the owners choose who they want, not have the board choose who should be on the board.  Does the board have the GUTS to do this?



Mark am I understanding you correctly? You can't possibly be saying that the nominating committee will be made up only of the very people whose activities are being called into question by the owners? Are you telling me that those who will be deciding on who can run will be the very individuals that many owners have expressed concerns about. We already know that Allen wont be a part of the equation since the "3" overule everything he wants to accomplish. Now you are saying that they are the only ones who will decide on who "can" run for the board. I have to think you must be mistaken. In the real world that would be considered corruption at its worst. That is the kind of thing that got Enron(bringing their own people in when to do audits when questions arose instead of independents) into difficulties. That cant be the scenario, can it?


----------



## marksue

Yes,  that is correct.  In the past it has always been 2 members of the board who were the nominating committee.  In the past it was never an issue because the board was concerned about the owners and we all felt there was plenty of transparency.  I have sent an email to the board and corey asking specifically who is on the nomination committee this year.


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> Eddie has a great background and could be an asset to the cause and the board.  I feel his writing on here will prevent him from getting nominated.  I have a feeling the board will nominate people they know and who agree with them and Marriott, and anyone who has been vocal against them will not get past the nomination committee.
> 
> I challenge the board to allow all people who wish to be on the board be submitted to the owners for a vote.  Let the owners choose who they want, not have the board choose who should be on the board.  Does the board have the GUTS to do this?



All of this is beginning to sound exceedingly paranoid to me.  I don't mean to be insulting here, but is there anything that Marriott and/or the BOD for OceanClub routinely does with which you don't find fault?  Every Marriott resort follows the same procedure with respect to the application process for candidates for the Board of Directors; it would not be realistic or prudent to expect that every owner must vote on the applications for candidacy and then vote for the board members.  Two separate elections?  No thanks.  As an owner if I wanted the responsibility of reviewing all of the applications for my resort then I'd run for a board seat myself.

As for Mr. Sitt, if you expect that board members are taking actions based on what people may be writing here, why would you write something like the above that you believe would sabotage his chance of placing his name on the ballot?

I'd guess Mr. Sitt would be a welcome addition to any board, and can't imagine that any association members would have any reason to question his motives or competency.  As yet, though, none of the MOC owners have provided him with the address or requirements for him to submit his application.  (I'd do it if I owned there.)  Instead of responding with defeatism, answer his specific question about "how to go about it" and help him get elected!

Again, I don't mean any insult and since I'm not an MOC owner my opinion means jacksquat here.  But you did put this all out for everyone to read, and my feeling after watching this thread since its inception is that if you were a "champion" for my resort, I'd be asking you to ease up on the hardline tactics.  Diplomacy can be a good thing.


----------



## marksue

I am not saying to have 2 voting sessions.  What I am saying is that instead of a nomination committee just put all names on the ballot and let the owners decide who should be on the board.

I appreciate your comments, but the board has been unresponsive for a long time and a hard line needs to be taken.  Others have tried a softer approach and have gotten no where with the board or with Marriott.

I had already sent Eddie the information on applying to the board.


----------



## Eric

How's the strong arming been working out so far ? I have not seen one tangable thing accomplish so far, just a lot of threats on your part. 





marksue said:


> I am not saying to have 2 voting sessions.  What I am saying is that instead of a nomination committee just put all names on the ballot and let the owners decide who should be on the board.
> 
> I appreciate your comments, but the board has been unresponsive for a long time and a hard line needs to be taken.  Others have tried a softer approach and have gotten no where with the board or with Marriott.


----------



## marksue

More if we had not done anything and let the board and Marriott walk all over us.


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> I am not saying to have 2 voting sessions.  What I am saying is that instead of a nomination committee just put all names on the ballot and let the owners decide who should be on the board.



I could be way off here, but it makes sense to me that there must be some sort of screening in place for candidates of the BOD, and the nominating committee is responsible for that.  I imagine that at the least the application contains personal information about candidates that is protected by privacy laws and may even require a CORI check or something similar, and a signature is required to give the nominating committee access to those personal items.  If Marriott was to change the entire process as you're suggesting, they would have to somehow circumvent privacy laws and I don't see how they could do it.  Nevermind the whole issue of, what person in their right mind would complete such an application knowing that thousands of Marriott owners would have access to their personal information?  Not very many.



marksue said:


> I appreciate your comments, but the board has been unresponsive for a long time and a hard line needs to be taken.  Others have tried a softer approach and have gotten no where with the board or with Marriott.



But you're not getting anywhere either, are you?  In fact, you've said that Marriott and your resort's BOD are even less responsive than they were before.  Others have said and I agree, there appear to be legitimate concerns surrounding the special assessment circumstances.  If your efforts had remained focused on this one issue then you may have had a chance of Marriott meeting you more than the half-way they've offered to this point.

But the rest of it - the quibbling over annual dues when you've been provided with a line-item budget and irrefutable proof from outside sources that Aruba's infrastructure costs are increasing, the insinuations based on rumors and innuendo that board members are acting inappropriately against the owners' interests, the paranoia that Marriott practices which work at all of the other MVC properties do not, will not and can not work at your one resort, and the demands to change the election process for BOD's - I'm sorry, none of that makes sense to me.


----------



## marksue

If you like i will send you the form.  All it asks is your name address occupation and why you wnat to be on the board.

Let me know when you get a 35% in your mf.  THe issue is the fee increase should not be that high if the owners did not pay millions to repair.  We also wouldnt be paying assesments if marriott pahad done thier proper due dilligence when they bought the building.

THis is an issue around fairness, transparency and owners rights.  The owners at the OC are upset and angry.  

If you think having the BOD, who the owners do not trust, be the nominating committee makes sense then not much to say.

I think if you were an owner at the OC you would feel different


----------



## Luckybee

I hope Mark doesnt take this the wrong way, but Mark is not the center of the universe here. I wish everyone would stop focusing so much on Mark but rather on the issues he has raised. Assume for a moment that what he is saying is true, and I have no reason to disbelieve him, that in fact the very board members whose actions are being questioned, will be the nominating committee. There are hundreds, yes hundereds, of owners who are upset over this situation at the OC and the manner in which this board has handled things. The logical conclusion , and suggested by many is "if you dont like it run for the board". Except this "board" the very one people are upset about will have the absolute ability to make certain nothing changes by totally controlling the nomination process. And people here think thats ok ? Huh ? I hear backround music and  Rod Serling starting an episode of the Twilight Zone.


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> If you like i will send you the form.  All it asks is your name address occupation and why you wnat to be on the board.
> 
> Let me know when you get a 35% in your mf.  THe issue is the fee increase should not be that high if the owners did not pay millions to repair.  We also wouldnt be paying assesments if marriott pahad done thier proper due dilligence when they bought the building.
> 
> THis is an issue around fairness, transparency and owners rights.  The owners at the OC are upset and angry.
> 
> If you think having the BOD, who the owners do not trust, be the nominating committee makes sense then not much to say.
> 
> I think if you were an owner at the OC you would feel different



That's surely correct; I'd be furious at the hit my pocketbook would be taking and that would make me even more irrational than some say I already am.  I wouldn't wish what any of you owners are going through on anybody, and really do hope that there can someday be a mutual resolution so that you can all relax and enjoy the resort that you purchased.

That aside, I am honestly shocked  that there is no screening process for the BOD!  Since you offered to send me the form I checked my latest mailing from the GM at BaronyBeach and found the form there.  At the very least I would hope that somehow there could be a way to disallow a person who had been ineffective in a similar past position.  There doesn't seem to be - live and learn.  The topic of how a BOD seat is filled - from application through screening and voting - might make for an interesting thread some day; I don't want to take your cause off on a tangent with it, though.

So, since you proved me wrong with that, I just went back and reread this entire thread.  Wow.  There are some very good points made here, both for and against you and the other OC owners, the BOD, and MVCI.  Whatever the tone or intent of the individual posts, in itself it is a lesson in diplomacy and timeshare ownership.

I'm going to keep reading but stop posting to this thread because there's nothing more I can add.  Before I go, though, I want to mention one thing that caught my eye this time around.  When I went back and read the January mailing from Barony Beach I noticed something:

_"To communicate with your BOD please feel free to send your comments or questions to MVCIBBCOB@vacationclub.com."_

That's new.  We used to have individual email addresses for all of our BOD members, just as you did.  I'm wondering if this is a new policy across the board at all resorts and if it is, is it a result of the situation at OC?  Or, more likely, is it just a coincidence that contributed to what appears at OC to be The Perfect Storm?  I see the financial situation at OC as a terribly unfortunate timing of unprecedented rising utility and labor costs on the island, insufficient collection of reserves for a number of years, delayed refurbishment of units, and a need to repair structural elements with no warranty recourse.  Combine the financial situation with changes to the BOD and poor/questionable communication methods, and you have a mess.

If it's any consolation to you, the BaronyBeach newsletter danced around the  topics of an upcoming refurbishment and the reserve fund.  I hope that if the day comes, some of the folks who are posting in this thread can talk me down as nicely as they've tried to do for you.

Good luck to you, Mark and all the other OC owners.  Truly.


----------



## marksue

lucky,

I agree with you.  I don't want to be the center of th universe.  All I am sharing is the information i Know or recieve.  You know the old say they shoot the messenger.  So if they want to go after me they can, but I will continue to post what I know and continue my activities  for the benefit of the owners.


----------



## Luckybee

marksue said:


> lucky,
> 
> I agree with you.  I don't want to be the center of th universe.  All I am sharing is the information i Know or recieve.  You know the old say they shoot the messenger.  So if they want to go after me they can, but I will continue to post what I know and continue my activities  for the benefit of the owners.



And so you should, imho you have been doing a great job. But that isnt the issue  I just didnt want the "shoot the messenger " theory to continue to interfere with the message, which by all accounts should have people concerned.


----------



## lovearuba

*Gratitude*

Hi Mark
I personally want to thank you for the abuse you take for keeping owners up to date with what has happened.  I got a call this week from Marriott wanting to update our referral list.  They had people on it that passed away 3 years ago.  I cant remember how long ago we gave them referrals but we asked them to update it by promptly removing anyone we referred.  

The sales person askd my husband if he was interested in purchasing another one and he made some comments about the maintenance fees.  The sales person said, "Oh you must own at the Aruba Ocean Club".  Guess they really are trying to find referrals if they are digging through referrals from years agol


----------



## marksue

I guess our efforts are being succesful.  If more and more people say that to the sales people maybe MArriott will get teh message.


----------



## qlaval

Did any one receive a response to the letter they have sent to Mr. Marriott?


----------



## marksue

I have not heard of any responses.  Is anyone surprised Marriott didnt respond?  I know I am not..  Maybe they will ahve the AOC board respond for them .


----------



## vincenzi

qlaval said:


> Did any one receive a response to the letter they have sent to Mr. Marriott?



To date, I have not received a response.  I mailed my letter "Personal and Confidential" to Mr. Marriott.  However, I doubt he read it.


----------



## marksue

Bill Marriott's  main office # is 301-380-3000;   His exec. asst. is named Phyllis Hester.  Give her a call and leave a message for Mr Marriott.  He will then have the head of MVCI call you.


----------



## marksue

*Here is the info on the nominating committee*

In the past the nominating committee usually just consisted of the President and Vice President. However, since there are actually two ‘A’ members and one ‘B’ member who’s terms expire this year, the Board recently voted and agreed that those falling off the Board will not be involved in the nominations; this leaves the two remaining Board members (the current vice president and treasurer/secretary) who will receive all nominations and then set up interviews and go through the selection process. I know that at a minimum, Marriott recommends to Board that the Nominating Committee choose at least a minimum of two volunteers for each open position, to be placed on the Limited Proxy. Selection of the candidate(s) is based on qualifying experience, and skills.  Applicants must commit to following applicable law when they volunteer to serve on the Board of Directors and will not have issues with following the law. Qualifications and expertise is solicited and evaluated in, but not limited to, the following areas: 

o        Association management

o        Accounting/budgeting experience

o        Business management

o        Contract and/or real estate law

o        Engineering experience

o        Professional accomplishments

o        Property management experience

o        Purchasing experience


----------



## marksue

There is a great deal of activity going on at the OC this week.  A few of the people behind this effort are down in Aruba gathering names of OC owners who want the special meeting.  I have high hopes we will shorlty have the 10% of the owners to call the special meeting.  Stay tuned as we get closer to the magic number.

As you can see from my above post, existing board members will choose who can run for the board.  I wonder who the people are they will select.  You think it will be anyone who disagrees with Frank and them selves?


----------



## marksue

As expected, but there was hope, Mr Marriott has not responded to any owners.  I did hear from well over a hundred owners that they did send letters to his office.  It is disappointing that he has not responded to anyone.  We can only hope he got the message and will put pressure on MVCI to get this resolved.

Marriott is announcing earnings on 2/12.  There is a conference call following the announcement.  AS a shareholder or owner, and I am not sure any of that matters, you are allowed to participate in the call and ask questions.  WOuld be great to have a bunch of owners on the call ask questions about the Ocean CLub.  On this call are the financial papers, and analysts.  The meeting is shceduled for Feb 12 at 10:00 am.  Here is the link and phone number for the call

The conference call will be webcast simultaneously via Marriott's investor relations website. Investors and news media wishing to access the call on the web should log on to http://www.marriott.com/investor, and click the link for the fourth quarter earnings call under "Recent and Upcoming Events". A replay will be available at that same website until February 12, 2010. The webcast will also be available as a podcast from the same site. A transcript of the call will also be available on the company's website. 

The telephone dial-in number for the conference call is 719-325-4831. The reservation number for the recording is 7210547


----------



## davidbb

How many people have actually paid their dues ?  I am having a real psyochological issue making the payment, knowing that at the very least I have been deceived and most likely have been defrauded in my purchase and my subsequent dues payments.

If enough owners refuse to pay dues, will it make a difference ?


----------



## Eric

yes, it will. It will generate lots of late fee payments for the HOA.




davidbb said:


> How many people have actually paid their dues ?  I am having a real psyochological issue making the payment, knowing that at the very least I have been deceived and most likely have been defrauded in my purchase and my subsequent dues payments.
> 
> If enough owners refuse to pay dues, will it make a difference ?


----------



## lovearuba

*davidbb*

Hi
We paid ours.  It just makes us angrier ever time we hear the Marriott name.  I know they are experiencing the same issues many folks are with the economy turning so sour and I dont think they realize what a price they are paying by letting their reputation go sour with it.


----------



## qlaval

davidbb said:


> How many people have actually paid their dues ?  I am having a real psyochological issue making the payment, knowing that at the very least I have been deceived and most likely have been defrauded in my purchase and my subsequent dues payments.
> 
> If enough owners refuse to pay dues, will it make a difference ?



Not paying our maintenance fees is not an option nor a way to express Marriott that we aren't satisfied with how things are handle.
If you don't pay you will expose yourself to extra fee... more eventually HOA will retake your TS to recover their money...


----------



## lll1929

I paid my Maint fee's but like others, I was not happy.  

I am not going to be happy when I have to pay the assessment in Apr.

I don't want to be subjected to late fees.  

I have a feeling next years fees are going to be over the top since we will have to absorb to fees that folks didn't pay in Jan 2009.  

I will pay as long as I am blessed to have a job and pay.  I have sent my letters, called as suggested by others and I hope to see a change, but with this economy, I am not holding my breathe.


----------



## marksue

I would recommend you pay your invoice.  Dont get hit with penalty fees and possible foreclosure on your unit for lack of payment.  Those of us invloved in this effort  have paid thier fees and letting the process work its self out.


----------



## luvmypt

We paid ours. Enough said


----------



## marksue

Aren't we all.  ANd do you think Marriott cares.  Remember tomorrow is the ANalysts call for Marriott.  Here is the info again if you want to dial in.


----------



## marksue

Not sure if anyone listened in on the call yesterday, but Marriott's, timeshare business is hurting.  They are dragging down Marriott's earnings and people are wlaking away from signed deals.

I tired to ask questions, but they seemed to have it limited to a certain group.  I even used an alias and wasnt allowed to ask questions, which seems they had it all planned out in advnace.

For those intersted on where we are on the special meeting.  We are going trough a review of all the names recieved to pull out any duplicates, but it looks like we may be at or very close to the 1133 needed to call a special meeting. 

As soon as a review is completed I will let you know.


----------



## marksue

*Response to letter to Mr. Marriott*

I know many of us received an email today from Dirk Schavemaker which is a response based on the letters sent to Mr. Marriott.  I will post the letter here shortly.  I will say this, it reads like the emails we got from the AOC board.  So if Marriott wants to say that they have not told the board what to say in previous letters, this letter supports the theory that they have.

It is also a disappointment that Mr. Marriott felt he had to pass it aback down to MVCI after the letters stated that MVCI has turned a deaf ear to the owners.

They try to make this letter read as if it was directly related to an individual’s letter to Mr. Marriott, but it does not answer any of the questions I addressed to him in my letter.  

Dirk, is the same one who at the owners meeting said, when an owner questioned the increase fee, maybe you should just sell your unit.

Once again an opportunity to sit with owners and come up with a resolution has gone by the wayside.


----------



## vincenzi

*Received My E-Mail Today*



marksue said:


> I know many of us received an email today from Dirk Schavemaker which is a response based on the letters sent to Mr. Marriott.  I will post the letter here shortly.  I will say this, it reads like the emails we got from the AOC board.  So if Marriott wants to say that they have not told the board what to say in previous letters, this letter supports the theory that they have.
> 
> It is also a disappointment that Mr. Marriott felt he had to pass it aback down to MVCI after the letters stated that MVCI has turned a deaf ear to the owners.



Yes, I received my e-mail today. Apparently, Mr. Marriott does not want to get involved.  I thought I would at least get a written response.  Of course, it costs no money to send out mass e-mails.  I am truly very disappointed.


----------



## marksue

My reply to the letter which I need to convert from a PDF since i can not do a direct copy.

To All;

I am actually surprised there was a response.  I am disappointed that Mr. Marriott passed the owners concern back to MVCI, since the reason to writing to Mr Marriott was the lack of response to the owners by MVCI, and calls to MVCI have been met with refusals to answer our questions.  This letter is no different then the past responses from MVCI or the AOC board.  I would have loved to say thank you for finally listening to us and doing what is right, instead the effort by the owners continues.

The letter was made to sound as if it addressed my concerns and questions posed to Mr. Marriott.  It doesn't even come close to answering my questions.

MVCI and Marriott have yet to step up and take responsibility for selling a defective building to AOC owners.  Please explain to me why the building has leaked from day 1. No one has yet been willing to address this question or any other questions raised by many original owners regarding the building defects.  Tell us how much it has cost us to maintain the building due to the constant leaks.  Why was the building improperly waterproofed such that owners have to pay to waterproof the building.  Marriott has never mentioned in the sales presentations that the building was exposed to the elements for 5 years

If you are saying that a roof is not going to last 25 years, why as the life span for the Surf Club stated at 25 years. It is in the same environment as the Ocean Club.  Why are we putting on a new roof with only a 10 year warranty.  Does this mean in 10 years the owners have to pay for it again?  If it is to last 20 years we deserve a 20 year warranty.

I have seen and I have in my possession a copy of the engineers report conducted by the Marriott engineer in which he raises concerns of the building based on its exposure to the elements prior to Marriott's purchase.


We all understand the reason for the increase.  We have been told the same story for the last few months.  Why we needed to hire 3 people to run the AOC in these tough economic times is beyond me. Marriott is the experts in TS business and they tell us what the reserve fees should be. Yet all of a sudden we are short, and we just hear about it now.  Sounds like fees were initially kept low to sell units.

I will also say that the expenses to TS Omar should never have been incurred if the building was not defective and of course this issue has yet to be addressed.

 I have suggested on numerous occasions the way to attempt to come up with a resolution is to sit down with a group of owners and work towards a satisfactory resolution, but this has fallen on deaf ears. The current AOC board has lost the support of the owners.

I welcome an open dialogue to address the roof issues.  I will also forward a copy of this letter to Mr. Marriott since he has had MVCI address the owners concerns.  As always I am open to speaking with you and Marriott representatives.


----------



## ilene13

*email*

I did not receive the email you are talking about.
ilene


----------



## marksue

Ilene,

Please send me your email address and i will send the letter.  It is a PDF so i am having aproblem psoting it here.  Not sure if I can have an attachement here for someone to open.

I did send a reply back to MR Marriott as did others.  Someone also sent a letter to a reporter at the Washington Post regarding this issue.

Here is soemthing else that might be of interest.

1986 was a year in which big changes for Aruba took place in different areas: the Status Aparte went into effect for the island, the Lago refinery shut down, which meant that Aruba lost one third of its revenues and unemployment rose to 20 percent at one go. Aruba had to change its tack as to its main economic activities and that had to be tourism: several hotel projects were developed, with varying success. In Oranjestad, a shallow next to the Wilhelminapark was raised and developed by American Bob Swain. The Swain Wharf consisted of a shopping mall and a hotel. Businessman Eduardo de Veer was granted permission to build a hotel next to the premises he owned on the waterfront in down town Oranjestad. However, that meant that the old police station had to be demolished. The hotel was built by Venezuelan contractors and finally managed by the Sonesta Group. As ‘beach property’, an open spot in the reef, next to the start of the airstrip of the airport was developed: the Sonesta Island connected by shuttle boats to the lobby of the hotel. 


Some other projects ended in disaster: development and construction were started with government guarantees but mismanagement, unreliable contractors and bankruptcies caused the cease of the completion of some hotels: a hotel south of the Concorde Hotel, that was called Eagle Beach Hotel during construction and was to be named Ramada Renaissance or Aruba Royal Resort after completion, that had not been half completed, had to be torn down partially. The tower that was almost finished was auctioned off and was finally taken over by the Divi Corporation. It is now part of the Divi Aruba Phoenix Resort. There were more serious problems for two hotels under construction north of Holiday Inn, which were to be named Plantation Bay and Beta Hotel respectively. Before construction was completed, they ran out of money, the Italian contractors had left without notice and the unfinished buildings were left empty for years, like modern time ruins. The government was even considering blowing up the skeletons when hotel magnate Marriott took care of them. In the course of the nineties, the Marriott Aruba Resort (the former Plantation Bay) was finished, followed by the Marriott Vacation Club (the former Beta Hotel). In 2007, the enormous Marriott Surf Club completed the triptych. That was how one of the darkest pages of the history of tourism in Aruba ended. For the island and for the government of Aruba however, the misery was not over yet.: the companies that had begun developing these and some other never started projects with government guarantees, summoned the country of Aruba and its government in court in the United States and in Italy and won their claims. Tens of millions of dollars were at stake, guaranteed by the government at that time. The government had to comply and the financial obligations that were the consequence of this were an enormous burdon on the state budget, which still causes an increasing deficit on the state balance. 

Another phenomenon that brought a bad name for the Aruban timeshare industry was the financing through  “bonds issues” (emission of shares). Project developers like Swain Wharf and Paradise Villas sold “bonds” against interest percentages of 12 and14%. They guaranteed that that they would pay them back by selling their timeshare project. This worked well for some time and bonds were popular because of their yield. However, things went wrong when Swain Wharf went bankrupt and a lot of people lost their savings. Swain Wharf was taken over by Meta Corporation but the timeshare owners retained their rights, based upon the principle that property sold does not annul the rent agreement. Paradise Villas owners met a similar fate: they had to make extra investments to secure their timeshare. Bonds issues also went sour at Tierra del Sol and La Cabana Villas. At Tierra del Sol owners of bonds lost their investments again when Sun Development went bankrupt and at La Cabana Villas, their dept in bonds was converted into weeks of timeshare.


----------



## marksue

*Here is the letter from Dirk*

Thanks to one of our fellow owners, he was able to convert the document.

Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to share your concerns. Mr. Marriott has reviewed your letter and asked me to respond on his behalf.
With regards to the replacement of the roof of the main building, Marriott Vacation Club International contracted with a nationally recognized and respected roof engineer/expert to advise the Board on the replacement of the roof. Independently, the Board also contracted with structural and mechanical engineers as well as an environmental expert to cross-check and verify that the installation, condition of existing structure and any environmental concerns meet stringent approval standards. As a result, the Board determined that the proposed course of action to replace the roof was necessary, and in the best interest of the Aruba Ocean Club.
Below, please find additional explanation for the dramatic increase in the Maintenance Fees in Aruba, highlighting the major financial impacts experienced in 2008.
Main drivers for the 2009 Budget:
•	Utilities: As mentioned above, electricity rates increased by more than 43%, and water rates increased by more than 22% in 2008. Although electricity and water consumption have been reduced by 5.6% and 1.3%, respectively, rate increases far exceeded the impact of the reduction in consumption. In 2009, the utility rates are budgeted to increase 15.5% for electricity and 14.9% for water.
•	Housekeeping: An increase in contract labor rates of almost 12% combined with laundry utility surcharges have resulted in an increase of more than 26% in housekeeping costs. In 2009, reduced tidy revenues (due to lower occupancy resulting from the planned refurbishment), and a 3.1% increase in hourly labor rates are the key drivers to the housekeeping budget increase.
•	Activities: Our pool towel service has also seen more than a 16% increase in costs as a result of utilities surcharges for 2008. In addition, palapas revenues decreased in 2008, resulting from a general desire by Aruba Ocean Club ownership to stop renting palapas to Aruba Surf Club owners and guest.
•	Administration: As mentioned above, Aruba Ocean Club added dedicated General Manager, Administrative Assistant and Director of Finance positions to the leadership team in 2008. The resort now carries 100% of the resulting expenses from these roles versus 25% Admin expenses shared with Aruba Surf Club in previous years.
•	Utility and Storm Deficit Recovery: This one-time expense offsets the 2008 year-end operating fund shortfall, driven by unforeseen utility cost increases, as well as from some water intrusion related expenses due to Hurricane Omar.
•	Reserves: The increase in the Residential Reserve Fund contributions are needed to offset recent increases in local sales tax, Aruba service tax, customs duties, overseas shipping and international construction costs. These cost factors increased by almost 50% during the past 3 years, relative to prior years. Additional funding of the Reserve is necessary to maintain the resort at current high level of standards we all expect. 
Furthermore, the resort is now 9 years
old, and it will be necessary to replace villa furniture, appliances and to refurbish our building facade. While the Association has and will continue to work with MVCI to ensure all construction and product warranties are honored by the developer and manufacturer, the combination of high occupancy, a tropical climate, trade winds and salt air have unfortunately resulted in a reduction of the normal life expectancy of some specific assets. The following assets have recently been replaced and/or are currently under review for replacement:
o	Replacement of the Main Building flat roof is scheduled to be completed no later than the end of the second week of December 2008. Upon completion of this work, all roofs will have a manufacturer's and installer's warranty that protects the roof integrity for the next decade. MVCI is paying more than 48% of the total roof replacement cost, including the prorated value related to the 5-year period the concrete skeleton and roof of the current AOC building sat idle and MVCI's 12.2% share resulting from its ownership of the commercial areas in the AOC building.
o	We have replaced all but 10 of our failed windows at no cost. While the manufacturer has provided replacement windows under their warranty, MVCI has paid for all shipping, tax and installation costs for these replacement windows.
o	In 2008, we upgraded our corridor HVAC system to capture and recycle lost, conditioned air from villa bathroom exhaust fans, which will reduce future energy consumption.
o	In 2008, the main pool and pump rooms were completely refurbished, including new pumps, filtration, pool and rock resurfacing.
o	The villa and facade refurbishment is scheduled to begin in July of 2009 and is expected to be completed by December 2009. The main lobby and corridors will have a completely new look, while all villa interiors, including bathrooms, will be updated. The Ocean Club will essentially be new inside and out. Most importantly, your vacation investment will be enhanced and protected for the long term.
Marriott Vacation Club International, our Management Company, is working side by side with your Board of Directors to ensure we continue to provide the vacation experience at Aruba Ocean Club each of us expects, while providing the best short-term and long-term value for each individual owner. In their efforts to assist the Association, Marriott has committed in excess of $2,000,000 in financial support during the next two years, which effectively reduces total 2009 and 2010 maintenance fees by approximately $180 per week.
In light of these major impacts, let me reassure you that hyper-escalation of the Maintenance Fee's for our owners is not beneficial to the Association or to Marriott. Going forward, it is our role to work with the Association to find long-term solutions that may mitigate the seemingly uncontrollable rise of utility increase impacts.
Thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns. Your input and observations are always welcome and very important to us. Should you have any additional questions or concerns on this matter, please call my office at 800 936 6824.


----------



## qlaval

*JW Marriott* was at the Marriott Stellaris yesterday....

He was there checking out the properties and announcing the construction of a five star luxury Ritz Carlton Resort north of the Marriott Resort on Hadicurari Beach....


----------



## m61376

qlaval said:


> *JW Marriott* was at the Marriott Stellaris yesterday....
> 
> He was there checking out the properties and announcing the construction of a five star luxury Ritz Carlton Resort north of the Marriott Resort on Hadicurari Beach....



Are they really going to erect a Ritz Carlton there? I know this was discussed some time ago, but in this economy with the hotels less than half full during prime season, I am a bit shocked that they plan to go ahead with this. Any news releases about this?

Guess we'll have to walk a bit further north to watch the kite and wind surfers.


----------



## billymach4

*Hadicurari Beach*

Hadicurari Beach 

Say that 5 times fast!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## modoaruba

Buyers' market if you got the bucks and the ability to hold out till a turn around.


----------



## qlaval

*Ritz Carlton Will Invest A Record US$200 Million On Aruban Property*

February 18th 2009, Aruba.

ORANJESTAD-The government has surprized many on the island on Wednesday by announcing the
construction of a five star luxury Ritz Carlton Resort. The present and past governments have for 
15 years tried to attract a prestigious five star resort brand such as the Ritz Carlton in Aruba, with
not much success. 

With great pride Prime Minister Nelson Oduber announced that the parties involved in the 
negotiation of the proposed Ritz Carlton project have reached an agreement, and construction of 
the resort will start shortly. The Prime Minister admitted that the road to bring Ritz Carlton to 
Aruba was long and difficult, but was pleased with the final outcome.

Aruba's tourism industry has long matured, and it is now time to elevate the quality of the tourism 
product to a higher level, by attracting the luxury market and that of high excellence. Contrary to
past hotel projects, it is agreed that the Ritz Carlton hotel will not receive tax holiday from the 
government, nor will the government stand guaranteed for the project. This project will not cost 
Aruba tax payers money, but will provide money to the government and locals once the resort is 
operational.

The hotel will be constructed north of the Marriott Resort on Hadicurari Beach, and it will be named
Aruba Ritz Carlton Resort Spa & Casino. Ritz Carlton Aruba will consist out of 320 rooms of high
quality design consistent with the standards of Ritz Carlton. The construction of the five star hotel
property is priced at US$200 million. Aruba Investment Bank is the biggest financial stakeholder in
the project.

While many hotel projects in the Caribbean are being cancelled because of the present global 
financial and economic crisis, the construction of Ritz Carlton in Aruba is a sign of confidence in the
tourism product and the economy of the island. The construction of the hotel is welcome news for
the construction sector, it will provide 425 construction jobs. Ritz Carlton Aruba will employ 500 
people once the hotel is operational. An additional 550 indirect jobs will be created because of 
additional tourists. Oduber says there is no need to attract much foreign labor, as 900 students 
complete their studies each year on the island.

Oduber emphasized that attracting an additional five star hotel on the island does not imply that 
Aruba is a five star tourism destination, but it is a step forward in achieving that goal. "We have 
to continue to improve our tourism product, through educating and motivating employees working 
in the sector, and hotels should improve and upgrade their facilities." The government will continue
to push for the relocation of the container terminal from Oranjestad to Barcadera, and soon 
announce the start of revitalizing the main street of Oranjestad.





The yellow stipple line indicates the construction lot for Ritz Carlton
Aruba, the red stipple line the rearranged road towards Westpunt.


----------



## m61376

Wow...in this economy. I guess they just feel that Aruba has such a loyal following.


----------



## marksue

Initially the Ritz was supposed to be vacation shares where you buy 3 months at a time.  Guess they realize that TS is not the way to go.


----------



## qlaval

In *ArubaToday*:

_PALM BEACH – The island of Aruba held the honor of welcoming Mr. Bill Marriott to the island yesterday. He started his visit at the Aruba Marriott Resort & Stellaris Casino with a site inspection lead by the resort’s General Manager Rick Zeolla and his executive team. Mr. Marriott enjoyed a full property tour during including Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club, Marriott’s Aruba Surf Club and the Aruba Marriott Resort & Stellaris Casino. Both guests and Marriott associates took the opportunity to take pictures with him during his short stay. Mr. Marriott and his delegation took this opportunity to celebrate the 10 year anniversary of Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club in Champion’s Sports Bar and the completion of the $50 million dollar face lift. 
“We have completely reinvented our lobby and reception area, creating a public space that provides for intimate conversations and casual lounging with seating areas that overlook our pool deck and the Caribbean Sea beyond it,” Zeolla says. “Once you check-in, be warned, you might never want to leave your room - as all 411 of our guest rooms and suites have been entirely made over with brand new furnishings, luxurious bedding, marble sinks, rain-style shower heads, flat screen televisions, and modern technology,” he continued. 

The delegation inspected the new upgrades including the new Tradewinds Club, which is 59 room VIP section of the resort which is "hotel within a hotel" nestled on the top floor. They strolled through the amazing new Ruth Chris Steakhouse and the astonishing La Vista Restaurant boasting the most amazing view on the island of Aruba’s sugar white beach and turquoise waters.
Mr. Marriott’s visit to the property ended with an executive lunch with the Aruba’s Prime Minister Nelson Oduber, Minister of Tourism and Transportation Edison Briesen, Aruba Hotel and Tourism Authority CEO Rob Smith, Mr. Walter Stipa of Desarrollos Hotelco S.A. and the hotel operator The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company L.L.C together with nearly 2 dozen Marriott & Renaissance executives. As a grand finale to the tour, Mr. Marriott was presented a gift from 22 of Aruba’s most aspiring young artists. The students of local artist Miriam De’Lisle gave Mr. Marriott a painting that each of them added to entitled “Aruba’s Playground for all Generations”._

I wonder if they spoke about the OC maintenance fee....


----------



## tlwmkw

Sounds like Mr. Marriott is very tight with the politicos in Aruba.  Not surprising since tourism is such an important industry there.  With a new Ritz-Carlton Marriott is betting on Aruba in a big way despite the high expenses of operating there.

In the article above it says they already had the renovation at the AOC but I thought they were just starting it and that's why the large assessment- which is correct?


----------



## m61376

I believe they completed the roof and the windows, but the villa renovations are starting in a few months, unless I am mistaken.


----------



## Retired to Travel

tlwmkw said:


> In the article above it says they already had the renovation at the AOC but I thought they were just starting it and that's why the large assessment- which is correct?



The Stellaris Hotel and lobby have been renovated, but not the Ocean Club yet (only the roof repair, as I understand it, is complete.)


----------



## ecwinch

I think the sentence should have read

"Mr. Marriott and his delegation took this opportunity to celebrate the 10 year anniversary of Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club in Champion’s Sports Bar and the completion of the $50 million dollar face lift *at the Aruba Marriott Resort & Stellaris Casino.*" 

As the other poster mentioned, it was the Aruba Marriott Resort that got the $50 million facelift.


----------



## qlaval

ecwinch said:


> I think the sentence should have read
> 
> "Mr. Marriott and his delegation took this opportunity to celebrate the 10 year anniversary of Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club in Champion’s Sports Bar and the completion of the $50 million dollar face lift *at the Aruba Marriott Resort & Stellaris Casino.*"
> 
> As the other poster mentioned, it was the Aruba Marriott Resort that got the $50 million facelift.



Exactly...


----------



## lovearuba

*The title*

I think the title should read, "Dishonest Mr. Marriott plans to invest more money in Aruba to take advantage of yet more timeshare owners".


----------



## m61376

Do you feel that opening a Ritz on the other side of the property is a detriment? On the other hand, I would think that it would upgrade the general area.


----------



## lovearuba

*ritz*

What beach will they use?  There is no beach on the other side of the street.  If you go to Aruba you want to be at the beach.


----------



## m61376

lovearuba said:


> What beach will they use?  There is no beach on the other side of the street.  If you go to Aruba you want to be at the beach.



They aren't going to be on the other side of the street. They are building beachfront North of the Marriott hotel, displacing the windsurfers.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> I think the title should read, "Dishonest Mr. Marriott plans to invest more money in Aruba to take advantage of yet more timeshare owners".



I think you are right - that was probably the whole purpose for his visit. His agenda probably read:

 10:00             Arrive on MVCI funded jet
 10:00-11:00    Review plans to keep Ocean Club defects secret
 11:00-12:00    Coach Ocean Club BOD on what to say
 12:00-2:00      Lunch w/ Aruba politicos to grease the wheels 
 2:00-3:00       Discuss plans to take advantage of Surf Club and future timeshare owners
 3:00-3:30       Token visit to Aruba Resort as coverup
 3:30-4:00       Drinks at Champions Sports bar
 4:00               Depart

It is the attention to detail that sets the great businessmen apart.

- Just trying to add some balance.


----------



## marksue

Similiar to the agenda I saw  lol


----------



## Sunbum

*Start a new thread*

The Ritz should probably under a new thread. Alot of interested people will not see it here. IMHO.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> I think you are right - that was probably the whole purpose for his visit. His agenda probably read:
> 
> 10:00             Arrive on MVCI funded jet
> 10:00-11:00    Review plans to keep Ocean Club defects secret
> 11:00-12:00    Coach Ocean Club BOD on what to say
> 12:00-2:00      Lunch w/ Aruba politicos to grease the wheels
> 2:00-3:00       Discuss plans to take advantage of Surf Club and future timeshare owners
> 3:00-3:30       Token visit to Aruba Resort as coverup
> 3:30-4:00       Drinks at Champions Sports bar
> 4:00               Depart
> 
> It is the attention to detail that sets the great businessmen apart.
> 
> - Just trying to add some balance.



Funny  As much as I think you may have been writing tongue in cheek Im not sure that some of this is far from the truth, particularily the 12:00-2:00 pm part. It has been pretty much taken as a given by Aruban residents that that is exactly what did go on with the Marriott when most(if not all ) island development laws were either broken, changed or amended to give Marriott everything they asked for much to the detriment of the island, that however is another issue altogether. 
The sad thing is that whatever his agenda we'd never know. The board would likely vote to keep that a secret too


----------



## Eric

Way to sound informed. A law was amended to accommodate the island, what a shocker. Marriott is the #1 job resource on the Island and tourism is what Aruba does. Stop drinking the koolaid and maybe things will be a little clearer.  





Luckybee said:


> Funny  As much as I think you may have been writing tongue in cheek Im not sure that some of this is far from the truth, particularily the 12:00-2:00 pm part. It has been pretty much taken as a given by Aruban residents that that is exactly what did go on with the Marriott when most(if not all ) island development laws were either broken, changed or amended to give Marriott everything they asked for much to the detriment of the island, that however is another issue altogether.
> The sad thing is that whatever his agenda we'd never know. The board would likely vote to keep that a secret too


----------



## Luckybee

Eric said:


> Way to sound informed. A law was amended to accommodate the island, what a shocker. Marriott is the #1 job resource on the Island and tourism is what Aruba does. Stop drinking the koolaid and maybe things will be a little clearer.




Now this is funny, and shows truly how uniformed YOU are. Do you know anything about Aruba at all? I ask because if you did you would realize how silly your comments are. I am not going to derail this thread by lowering myself to your level and debate something that isnt open for debate. Let me simply say that perhaps you should inform yourself about Aruba better, the history of Marriott in Aruba, the needs and wishes of Aruban residents and then perhaps you might have something intelligent to add to the conversation....till then


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Now this is funny, and shows truly how uniformed YOU are. Do you know anything about Aruba at all? I ask because if you did you would realize how silly your comments are. I am not going to derail this thread by lowering myself to your level and debate something that isnt open for debate. Let me simply say that perhaps you should inform yourself about Aruba better, the history of Marriott in Aruba, the needs and wishes of Aruban residents and then perhaps you might have something intelligent to add to the conversation....till then



You will not lower yourself to that level, but your not above insulting him.


----------



## Eric

I must have missed the part where you actually said something useful. 



Luckybee said:


> Now this is funny, and shows truly how uniformed YOU are. Do you know anything about Aruba at all? I ask because if you did you would realize how silly your comments are. I am not going to derail this thread by lowering myself to your level and debate something that isnt open for debate. Let me simply say that perhaps you should inform yourself about Aruba better, the history of Marriott in Aruba, the needs and wishes of Aruban residents and then perhaps you might have something intelligent to add to the conversation....till then


----------



## DeniseM

This thread is very close to being closed - please debate the issues and keep personal comments out of it.


----------



## lovearuba

*DeniseM*

Hi Denise
I think this post is extremely beneficial to us timeshare owners that have a place at the ocean club.  I also think it serves other owners as a way of seeing what is coming their way.  We are close to having enough signatures to get a special meeting and as a member of tug I am disappointed that you would consider closing the post rather than blocking the offenders from posting. I am hoping that is an option and I really do appreciate the effort it takes to monitor this site.  Its one of the better sites and this post cleary is effective.


----------



## DeniseM

lovearuba said:


> Hi Denise
> I think this post is extremely beneficial to us timeshare owners that have a place at the ocean club.  I also think it serves other owners as a way of seeing what is coming their way.  We are close to having enough signatures to get a special meeting and as a member of tug I am disappointed that you would consider closing the post rather than blocking the offenders from posting. I am hoping that is an option and I really do appreciate the effort it takes to monitor this site.  Its one of the better sites and this post cleary is effective.



I agree completely.  Hopefully, the other participants will see the importance of this thread and behave in a civil manner.


----------



## marksue

I agree with Lovearuba.  We are close if not there to call a special meeting.  i am getting all the lists from the folks who ahve been in Aruba signing up additional owners.  It is interesting that Dirk did call a meeting with owners the same time Mr Marriott was at the Hotel.  You do have to wonder.

How many people ahve heard back from the board since they have submitted thier applications for the board?


----------



## marksue

*Board nominees*

Well the board members have gone thru thier"weeding out" process.  Seems that 45 people applied to be on the board.  They only spoke to 7 of the 45 and then chose the 4 they would allow run for the board.  I know people who were more than qualified but yet never got a call from the board.

THen to add insult to injury the GM Corey, a Marriott employee, sends an email to all who were not selected, with a form letter saying they weren't chosen.  Why couldn't Melissa and Steve (the nomination committee) do the right thing and send the letters out themselves.  This is why we need to change the existing board through a special meeting.  

It was really low that 1) they did not really consider everyone (could it be they already had thier choices made up prior to getting nomination forms), 2) take the upper road and personally send out the emails telling those who took the time to fill out the application and provided other relevant data, which was asked of them.


----------



## timeos2

*100% Wrong. Raises big red flags*



marksue said:


> Well the board members have gone thru thier"weeding out" process.  Seems that 45 people applied to be on the board.  They only spoke to 7 of the 45 and then chose the 4 they would allow run for the board.  I know people who were more than qualified but yet never got a call from the board.
> 
> THen to add insult to injury the GM Corey, a Marriott employee, sends an email to all who were not selected, with a form letter saying they weren't chosen.  Why couldn't Melissa and Steve (the nomination committee) do the right thing and send the letters out themselves.  This is why we need to change the existing board through a special meeting.
> 
> It was really low that 1) they did not really consider everyone (could it be they already had thier choices made up prior to getting nomination forms), 2) take the upper road and personally send out the emails telling those who took the time to fill out the application and provided other relevant data, which was asked of them.



This speaks volumes and none of them good. Why would/should the current Board "review" or approve candidates? An owner is an owner, therefore is automatically qualified to run/serve and it should be up to the voters (owners) who the top candidates are. They should see the resumes/candidate statements for ALL and let the votes decide the outcome. This really smacks of incestuous selection and, unfortunately, something to hide.  Those who have followed this near record setting thread (maybe it is the record, I don't know) know that I have not been particularly supportive of MarkSue views. But in this case it is right on - this stinks! 

If there wasn't a reason for a special meeting / recall before there certainly is now. Good luck to all.


----------



## ecwinch

timeos2 said:


> This speaks volumes and none of them good. Why would/should the current Board "review" or approve candidates? An owner is an owner, therefore is automatically qualified to run/serve and it should be up to the voters (owners) who the top candidates are. They should see the resumes/candidate statements for ALL and let the votes decide the outcome. This really smacks of incestuous selection and, unfortunately, something to hide.  Those who have followed this near record setting thread (maybe it is the record, I don't know) know that I have not been particularly supportive of MarkSue views. But in this case it is right on - this stinks!
> 
> If there wasn't a reason for a special meeting / recall before there certainly is now. Good luck to all.



Do you really think that a ballot with 45 candidates on it would be meaningful? I agree that process needs improvement - 4 candidates is too few - but clearly having a ballot with 45 candidates on it would be unworkable. Assuming 1/4 of page for each candidates resume and a very short statement, you would be looking at a 10 page ballot.

But I do think there has to be a better way.


----------



## tlwmkw

Try to get e-mail addresses for the few candidates that were selected and find out which of them has views similar to yours.  Then you can let others who are voting the same way know and you should have quite a block of votes.  It does seem odd that they vet the candidates and only let you pick from the favored few.  Sounds like voting in a communist regime.  Forty five candidates would be a lot to wade through, but it would make sense to have it a little more open.


----------



## timeos2

*Who says they are good or bad candidates?*



ecwinch said:


> Do you really think that a ballot with 45 candidates on it would be meaningful? I agree that process needs improvement - 4 candidates is too few - but clearly having a ballot with 45 candidates on it would be unworkable. Assuming 1/4 of page for each candidates resume and a very short statement, you would be looking at a 10 page ballot.
> 
> But I do think there has to be a better way.



Sure it is unlikely a ballot of 45 will result in a new Board (the vote would be split over too many candidates) but why would the current Board be allowed/qualified to decide who is worthy to run and who isn't? If the resorts docs say an owner can run then they can. Period. If it allows for a run-off or selection process (I doubt it does) then that would be the rule to follow. 

We have had as many as 26 candidates for 2 seats at resorts I own. Somehow the voters (owners) were able to sort it out and have a majority vote for 2.  That is the only fair, above board way to handle it IMO.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Out-In-The-Open Nomination Process.*

Last year, in response to a call for nominations for candidates to serve on a (non-Marriott) Florida timeshare HOA-BOD, I nominated myself according to the procedures set forth.  

(I lost, but that's another story.) 

I devoted some care & attention to writing up my platform & my statement of qualifications. 

I would have been mightily steamed if, after I took the trouble to respond to the call, my self-nomination got filtered out via some unknown behind-the-scenes screening process that candidates had not known about in advance. 

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


----------



## SueDonJ

I'd want to know a lot more about the process for selecting a BOD, both throughout the Marriott system and as applicable to a certain resort, before I'd be willing to say that the system in place at Aruba Ocean Club is wrong or not.

Previously in this thread I questioned how it all worked and at that time was told by marksue that the Nominating Committee based their candidate decisions on the simple application.  That answer surprised me; it didn't make sense at all that more information wouldn't be necessary.  Now here he says that the folks who did apply "...fill[ed] out the application and provided other relevant data."

What is the "other relevant data", and how does it impact the selection process?  Is it personal/privacy-law-protected information that a candidate would not want disclosed, or a Nominating Committee legally cannot disclose, to the entire ownership base?  If so, wouldn't that make it difficult to open every applicant to the voting process?

I don't know.  I guess I just keep going back to the Nominating Committee, as members of the BOD, are voted in by the owners who do bear some responsibility for determining prior to purchase if the practices of the BOD are suspect.  What about the bylaws?  Is the BOD election process stipulated in them?  If so, what "injury" has occurred to force a legal separation from the bylaws?

I also don't know how anyone can form an opinion about what is right and wrong here, without knowing the answers to all of the questions.


----------



## lovearuba

*No Trust*

It is clear that the owners have lost trust in the board and anything that comes from them is suspect.  I get emails from the board, read them and treat them like the rest of my junk mail.


----------



## iamnotshopgirl

Most proxy statements I see have the ability to write in the name of someone "write-in candidate" on the proxy vote form. I do not know if OC does this. But say they do can't you Tuggers (I am not going to single out anyone) get together and run your own candidate? At least you would have a good shot of getting one who represents your thinking/views on the board. 

bob


----------



## ecwinch

The dissidents here only represent a small, small fraction of the membership.


----------



## iamnotshopgirl

ecwinch said:


> The dissidents here only represent a small, small fraction of the membership.



Well Eric it looks like MarkSue and others who have voiced their opinion on this thread have some networking to do. But I am sure with the hard work already done your "small, small fraction of the membership" can easily be changed to the "vast majority of the membership". It may take just some extra effort on their part but I am sure all would be up to the challenge.

bob


----------



## lovearuba

*Let them never forget*

Part of the reason for keeping this thread active is to inform Ocean club owners, and if our efforts reach just one person its worth it.  I've seen many folks start off reading these threads with skepticism.  Their first take is that people were just whining, eventually the folks that owned at the ocean club started to really listen to what was being said.  Eventually, most of them changed their minds based on factual information that they received.  No one wants to admit that their favorite hotel chain would intentionally deceive them but no one would ever believe that the stock market would drop as far as it did.  The glass is no longer half full.   The reality is that we are being taken advantage of.  We have a right to notify other time share owners and to help other would be time share newbies of what their future may hold.  I wish I knew what I know now.


----------



## ecwinch

iamnotshopgirl said:


> Well Eric it looks like MarkSue and others who have voiced their opinion on this thread have some networking to do. But I am sure with the hard work already done your "small, small fraction of the membership" can easily be changed to the "vast majority of the membership". It may take just some extra effort on their part but I am sure all would be up to the challenge.
> 
> bob



I think the group here has done a great job of staying the course and withstanding the slings and barbs of the critics. Kudos to Marksue, LoveAruba, and LuckyBee. Likewise to the efforts of the former BOD president.

I just wonder if they figured out what will happen if they win. Thats the law of unattended consequences.

Is a future without Marriott management a good thing for the Ocean Club?


----------



## Mr. Bill

*The Self-licking Ice Cream Cone Board Election Process*

So you've had enough and you submit an application with the following:

As a multiple-week owner for many years, I feel like I am returning home when I get to the Ocean Club with its white sandy beaches. Over the last few years, I have noticed that maintenance appears to be slipping and I am shocked that my maintenance fees are increasing so significantly. I have also noticed that the staff is not as accommodating as they used to be. I think we owe it to ourselves to get back on the positive side of this equation and relationship. I do not want a negative perception attached to my Aruba property. I enjoy finding new problems to solve, and new challenges to overcome. As an elected board member, I would serve to reach an end product that will benefit all owners in a positive manner and not alienate Marriott. Working together we can have our slice of paradise on One Happy Island. 

Then you get a thanks but no thanks lame rejection from Big Brother. 

Then you send a response that reads something like this:

The procedure, process, practice... call it what you will of the Nominating Committee and the Board is a moving target with too many loose ends. This Board is not representative of the owners. There should be strict bylaws and they should be followed, not changed on a whim. When do the owners get a chance to participate and have a say about their investment? Between A Members, B Members, Presidents, Vice Presidents, and the like, I think it is time to use some common sense. If need be, please share my request with the Board: Please either have my information placed on the ballot - OR - please make arrangements for the Marriott Vacation Club of Aruba Cooperative Association Board of Directors to purchase back my Shares at the fair market value. Enough is enough. Again, these are the only two solutions that will be of satisfaction to me. I await your timely response.

Then you sit and wait and wait and wait... :zzz:


----------



## lovearuba

*glad you tried*

Hi
I am appreciative that you at least tried.  My understanding is that Marksue is close to getting enough member signatures to move forward.  :whoopie:


----------



## marksue

Sorry for not responding in a while but I am just finishing up a cruise and will be spending a few more days relaxing before heading home. While I was gone a got an email from Frank Knox which sounded like all the other Marriott composed emails. As soon as I can I will get it posted.

As to the question about other relevant data in the process of selecting candidates we had to supply resume, why we want the position, and any Real estate or board qualifications as well as area of expertise (Finance, engineering etc). We are checking the bylaws to see if we can get a right in candidate and will communicate with the over 1300 owner sold units who have signed up so far. We continue to grow that list as people go to Aruba and meet others at the Ocean Club they share what we are doing and they sign up.

Recently when in Aruba one of the nominees, who's name will be revealed later went around saying, without realizing he was talking to some of the people on this effort, that those people making noise are trouble makers and should be stopped and should let the board do what it needs to. If in fact he is on the list, there will be an effort to keep him off.

I hope to have the special meeting called prior to the board meeting.

Will provide more on my return home.


----------



## marksue

*Frank Knox's email*

March 2009
Dear Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club Owner:
Ten Year Renovation
After almost 10 years of extremely hard use (over 94% average occupancy – the highest within Marriott Vacation Club® International), the Aruba Ocean Club will undergo its first major villa renovation beginning this summer. Led by Board Member, Steve Richards, who has a background in construction management and 12 years experience in the hospitality industry, the Board has been working diligently over the past 18 months to ensure that we will receive maximum value for every dollar spent on the upcoming renovation. The overall cost of the project as initially estimated by the Marriott design team has been reduced by almost $2 million by reducing the overall scope of work. For example, we saved 30% on the cost of new appliances (the largest single purchase within the renovation) by simply substituting off-white GE Profile appliances instead of stainless steel appliances. We also ensured that the new look of our resort will be more in keeping with our Caribbean surroundings and that the Ocean Club will have a more distinctive, home-like feel by substituting several custom features to the lobby and in the villas not found at other Marriott Vacation Club International properties.
Marriott’s initial plans called for no work to be done to the villa bathrooms other than a fresh coat of paint. As we all know, our bathrooms desperately need to be upgraded to better utilize what little space there is. The renovation of the bathrooms will include:
1.
Adding a double sink to most bathrooms; more durable granite counter tops
2.
Adding more storage space including drawers to the bathroom vanities
3.
Changing the doors so they swing into the bedroom rather than swing into the bathroom blocking the entrance to the shower
4.
Rebuilding the shower enclosures so they are more functional and do not leak
The Board’s decision to completely renovate all bathrooms added to the overall cost of the project because of the extensive demolition and reconstruction work required to bring our bathrooms up to acceptable standards.
Few Owners are aware that Marriott is providing a direct financial contribution approaching $2,000,000 to our 10-year renovation. Marriott has waived fees that they are entitled to collect as part of their management agreement with the Association and they have offered up their rooms that they would otherwise rent or use for exchange within Marriott Vacation Club International and Interval International®. As a result, Owners who wish to use the property during the period of the renovation will not be turned away.
Future updates will provide additional details specifically about the villa and lobby renovation but here are some specifics about the overall plan:

Because of the current economic conditions, the Board made the decision to split the assessment for the renovation between 2009 and 2010 to ease the burden on Owners. Because the funds to pay for the renovation will be split between two years, the renovation must be accomplished in two phases. 90% of the work including all construction will be done this summer and fall during the first phase while the second phase will be complete in early 2010.

The 2009 renovation begins in mid July 2009 and is anticipated to be completed by Thanksgiving 2009. This phase includes renovation of all villas, hallways, common spaces and the lobby.

During phase one, approximately 18 villas (one entire hallway on one wing of one floor) will be taken out of service for approximately 21 days. When complete, those villas will be put back into service and the next 18 villas will go under renovation until all villas are complete.

Phase Two will occur in early 2010 which include replacing all appliances as well as several other smaller items that will not require that villas be taken out of service.

Because Marriott is absorbing the loss of room inventory during the renovation from the weeks that they own/control, Ocean Club Owners will not be disadvantaged as a result of the renovation.

The lobby renovation will be accomplished as early as possible during Phase One.
Hurricane Omar
Damage caused by last summer’s Hurricane Omar has been repaired at a cost of approximately $100,000 which is far less than originally expected. While the Association carries insurance on the property, the cost of repairs did not reach the level of our deductible so expenses were paid from our maintenance reserves. Similar to the insurance premium on your own home or automobile, you pay an escalated premium for a lower deductible and in Aruba’s southernmost location in the Caribbean, paying that much higher premium is not a sound business decision.
Window Replacement
As you may have seen during visits to Aruba the past several years, many of the double pane, energy efficient windows in the Ocean Club had become cloudy because of broken seals. The original window manufacturer provided replacement windows under warranty. Marriott agreed to pay for the installation of the new windows and to purchase an additional 500 windows should they be needed in the future. To date, over 500 windows have been replaced at no cost to the association (since Marriott absorbed the cost) and we have sufficient windows on hand to replace others that might fail in the future... a benefit that was also paid for by Marriott.
2009 and 2010 Maintenance Fees
Last December the Board e-mailed responses to a number of questions frequently being asked by Owners. One of the updates explained the reasons for the significant increase in 2009 Maintenance Fees compared to prior years. As you may recall, 2009 Maintenance Fees were driven by significant increases in the cost of both electricity and water (up 43% and 22% respectively over 2007 rates), the growing cost of labor in Aruba, a 35% increase in shipping costs, fees and taxes and the cost to repair Hurricane Omar water damage not covered by insurance.
Last September, the cost per kilowatt hour (KWH) of electricity was $.29. The cost of water was $7.24 per unit. These were the rates used by the Board in October to set the 2009 budget which dictated the significant increase in 2009 maintenance fees. With the falling price of oil, the cost of utilities in Aruba has dropped substantially over the past three months. In December, electricity had dropped from $.29 to $.15 per KWH and water was down from $7.24 to $4.16 per unit.
Each year in October the Board sets the maintenance fee for the coming year based on year-to-date actual expenses and other known expenses for the coming year. In October 2008 the Board had no choice but to assume that utility rates in 2009 would be the same, if not more than in 2008. The Board also had to recover a substantial 2008 deficit resulting from unbudgeted increases in utilities and labor as well as unexpected repair and maintenance costs. Later this year, the Board will set the maintenance fee for 2010. If utility rates continue at or near the current level the Board anticipates a year-end surplus.
Look for the next Owner’s Update in March where we will provide more details about the upcoming renovation and a final report on the recently completed roof replacement.
Bon Dia!
And remember those magnificent Aruba sunsets.


----------



## tlwmkw

Marksue,

I just read this e-mail from Frank Knox and it all seems to make good sense- you haven't really commented on this and I wonder what your take on it is?  I was interested to hear that the board had actually increased the costs over what Marriott has proposed.

Also, you said you are close to getting your quorum for the special meeting/election- what exactly do you plan to do if you get control of the board?  Is your intention simply to stop the renovation altogether or do you just want to make it cheaper than the current proposal?  Or do you want to oust Marriott and not have the Marriott affiliation at all?  I know you feel Marriott has been dishonest and opaque but how will you change things?  These are all things you must consider if you achieve your goal. 

The reason I mention this is that some friends own at another Carribean timeshare which was managed on the cheap for some years (no renovations, no reserves, poor overall upkeep) and they now have a new manager who was brought in to bring the place back up to being a good quality resort that people would want to visit.  This was the choice of the owners since the resort had gotten so bad, however the new manager is proposing upgrades and major expenses in order to achieve this.  The problem is that you can't have a cheap and world class resort- you have to make a choice of one or the other.  If you aren't careful you may get in the same boat and have even higher expenses later just to keep the place habitable.  The building/roof repairs have to be done as do the weather proofing so that seems an unavoidable expense and if you do oust Marriott you would also lose the 43% that they have pledged toward the roof as well as all their corporate discounts on appliances/furniture/etc.  I do think you need to consider this because you may end up costing yourself more money than even what is currently on the table (and if you get lawyers involved the expense will skyrocket exponentially).

Just my 2 cents- I wish you well no matter what happens but am concerned about the unintended consequences that may result in the future.
tlwmkw


----------



## lovearuba

*My 2 cents*

Hi
In response to your inquiries to Marksue, I think its important for you to know that the supporters are not looking to walk away from Marriott.  We want to make sure we are appropriately represented on the board and that we receive accurate and timely information.  We want to make sure we are only charged what we are responsible for.  I am sure everyone that owns in this timeshare wants a quality product.  

Others feel free to weigh in as I know you will.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Hi
> In response to your inquiries to Marksue, I think its important for you to know that the supporters are not looking to walk away from Marriott.  We want to make sure we are appropriately represented on the board and that we receive accurate and timely information.  We want to make sure we are only charged what we are responsible for.  I am sure everyone that owns in this timeshare wants a quality product.
> 
> Others feel free to weigh in as I know you will.



If this a modification of your groups position, I think that is a great thing. And I think these are things that most owners would want, and we would all support.

But I do think you have to keep in mind that in course of this long thread, your group has accused Marriott of conduct that is at the least unethical, if not criminal, and mostly commonly under the threat of potential legal action. I do not see how you would not think that separation from Marriott would be a natural by-product of the manner in which you have encouraged owners to support the cause. You have made them out to be a manipulating, dishonest, unethical corporation only concerned with gouging the owners and increasing their profit margins. Why would you continue to do business with them?

And as a business owner, I certainly would not want customers who think of me in that fashion.

And if you stop viewing every BOD response to your concerns through that same prism, I think you will find that MVCI has made significant contributions to the challenges at OC. Likewise the BOD has been attempting to communicate, but every effort has been slammed as being more MVCI provided drivel.  I agree with tlwmkw, it would interesting to hear the response to Frank Knox's letter. It's tone and appearance, would seem to be what you have asked for.


----------



## tlwmkw

Lovearuba,

I'm not challenging you guys, or your efforts, I'm just asking what your feelings are about the recent e-mail and also what you plan to do to change things at the OC.  I don't see how you can avoid many of the expenses- the only ones you can really get rid of are the renovation and having Marriott as the manager of the resort.  If you do stall the renovation then it may be more expensive in the future and also make the resort less desirable.  I would imagine many owners would be upset if the resort became tired and had lots of old, broken appliances.  Ditto if Marriott is gone (that would save you their 10% but new managers will also charge a fee so I don't know how much you will actually save- not to mention the corporate discounts that you get with a large company like Marriott).

The other good news was that some of the anticipated expenses are decreasing- you may find your expenses won't be as high as you originally thought.  What do you and marksue think about all this?

tlwmkw


----------



## lovearuba

*ecwinch*

This thread has appropriately addressed many concerns from timeshare owners.  I'm not sure if you own at the ocean club or not, its unclear since you do not list them.  

My input has been provided and it is my input.  You really do not need to agree with me or disagree.  You also dont need to challenge everything a supporter of taking action has to say.  You are entitled to your opinion as we are ours.

Have a great day


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> This thread has appropriately addressed many concerns from timeshare owners.  I'm not sure if you own at the ocean club or not, its unclear since you do not list them.



I have never understood how the issue of owning at Ocean Club is a factor. But to answer the question directly, I own at MVCI Harbour Point. If that somehow diminishes my opinion, so be it.

As I pointed out in post #514, I think it is important to the dialog to have some balance to the discussion. Your group has engage in a deliberate campaign to discredit the actions of your duly elected BOD. Every communication they provide is posted here, and followed up with a biased interpretation of that communication.  That demagoguery cries out for balance. 

You have a better day.


----------



## marksue

The intent of the owners effort is to put in place a board that is an owner friendly board and will look out for the owner’s interests and be more transparent.  Marriott has walked all over this board and the actions of the board indicate they are following Marriott’s directions.  the current board is operating in a dark room and no one knows what they are doing.  We want to work with Marriott but with an arms length relationship.  We want the board to represent the owners interests and work hard with Marriott to meet those needs or come up with a liveable solution for both parties.

I do believe Marriott was deceptive in the way they sold the Ocean Club.  They never told anyone the story of the building and that it stood open to the elements for over 5 years.  I know in my discussions when I bought I mentioned the reason I bought was Marriott was known for quality.  If I knew they did not build the building I would have done more investigation.

As per Franks letter, most of what he has in there is the same stuff we have been hearing.  He says they made the decision to split the assessment due to the economic conditions.  I happen to know that Allan and I were speaking about the assessment prior to the severe economic downturn.  In fact Frank wanted to have the assessment due with the annual dues for 2009 but owners were already told it would be in June.  Instead they are moving it to April and next year will be with the dues, which once again is against what was previously told to owners.  We have always questioned why the board has not pushed Marriott to pay for the waterproofing and the damage caused by TS Omar.  Once again that is not addressed.  The questions owners have been asking the board for months have yet to be answered.

When he talks about charging less than Marriott suggested is not the truth.  I had a conversation a while back with MVCI and they mentioned that what the board wanted to do for the renovations was 5m more than what Marriott recommended.  Based on Frank’s letter about the bathroom I believe Marriott over Frank.   The bathrooms were quite efficient and just painting would have been fine. The kitchen is what was recommended by Marriott.  But if this is what the owners want, let the woners know what the costs are and then look for a final decision.  Today these decisions are made without any owners input.

Why did Steve have to purchase hand blown chandeliers put in the lobby?  Off the shelf lighting would have been fine and Marriott was trying to stop Steve from purchasing the custom made chandeliers.

We the owners are not looking to pull away from Marriott or do things are the cheap, but we do want the owners to have more transparency and say regarding their property.

Why did the board refuse to listen to Allan when he suggested letting the owners decide if they wanted to put off the renovations 1 year due to economic conditions.  Frank and the board has locked Allan out of all conversations and decisions because he is friendly to the owners.

Even the nomination committee was done with a hidden agenda.  One of the people selected was not qualified last year, yet a person who was quite qualified was not even spoken to.  The difference, the person selected, believes in the lack of transparency.


----------



## OCsun

I felt like the letter from Marriott showed that they have heard our complaints and are trying to move in the right direction.  I was pleasantly surprised that Marriott has looked at the cost of appliances and decided to use off white, rather than the more expensive Stainless Steel.  If they work toward reducing our maintenance fees, I will be even happier!  There are many things I love about the Ocean Club but like everyone these days, keeping costs to a reasonable level is a big priority.  JMHO


----------



## tlwmkw

OCsun,

Are you an owner at the OC?  I assume that you are by you screen name but was just curious.  I only ask because I was wondering what owners had thought of the e-mail that was posted above and you were the only one who really has addressed that.  It does seem that whether owners like it or not the expenses of doing business in Aruba are high and I don't know how the board (or Marriott, or anyone) can lower those prices.  As I said you can delay or stop the renovation but I would imagine many owners would be upset by that too.  It's a very difficult situation and I think one that all Marriott owners are watching with interest to see how it resolves.

tlwmkw


----------



## marksue

TLW.. There are ways that cost could have been curtailed.  Previously there was a shared resource between the OC and SC.  This year the board decided to have a dedicated resource for the OC.  It is fine they decided to have a dedicated resource, but why did they also have to hire an assistant for him.  When they looked at the energy costs and inflation they used June numbers vs the Sept numbers which were dramatically different.  If Marriott paid for damages due to the defective building they sold to owners maint costs would have been lowered.  No one is saying that the majority of the increase is valid, but where was the financial responsibility with some of the items where there were opportunities to control the costs.

It is hard to justify a 1 bedroom in the OC costing more than a 2 bedroom in the SC.  I know this is the case because I own a 1 bedroom in the OC and a 2 in the SC.  Many of these questions regarding flexible costs have been asked of the board with no response.


----------



## ecwinch

Marksue 

Hindsight is always 20/20. It is always easy to second guess their actions, and most of the points you raise here have been explained.

For the newcomers, MarkSue knows that the BOD has considered legal recourse to address the defective building claim, and decided instead to pursue a strategy of working with MVCI to address the issue. The 43% offer is a result of that strategy.

So if your special meeting efforts lead to a new slate of directors (though according to the by-laws it is not certain that could happen), and the new BOD comes to the same conclusion to not sue MVCI, are you going to be satisfied? Or are you going to then claim that MVCI subverted the special meeting process?

Is your real agenda to find grounds to force MVCI to buyback your unit, because you enjoy the SC more?


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Unfortunately, Hindsight Is Not Always 20-20.*




ecwinch said:


> Hindsight is always 20/20.


We can hope that it is. 

With luck, our hindsight will be 20/20 & we can learn from an experience no more & no less wisdom than the experience teaches. 

The trouble is, sometimes people don't see clearly even after the fact, & they just keeping on making the same mistakes over & over. 

So it goes.

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


----------



## marksue

Eric there are many things that we want with the new BOD.  I have never stated I am looking to have MVCI buy back my unit and that is not the intent.  The intent is to provide transparency to the owners and bring back a bod that will focus on owner rights vs giving in to Marriott.  Let the owners have a say on items that will impact them financially now or in the future, it is their property that is being impacted.

There is no confidence in the board today and there is also no trust in the existing board.  When it was presented to give the owners a say on some key decisions that had major financial impacts, it was 4 - 1 against the decision to let the owners have a vote.

If there is confidence in the board what ever decisions are made and there is transparency by keeping the owners informed and taking their input then many of us will accept the decisions of the new board.

The fact the board refuses to speak with owners since the forcing out of Allan tells you a lot about the current board.  Having a Marriott employee answering questions to the board, tells you a lot about the current board.  The board has a fiduciary duty to the owners and they have failed at that responsibility.


----------



## ecwinch

I understand your view of the current BOD. While you see items from a certain perspective, I simply see it differently.  

Putting refurbishment issues to a vote would result in the not insignificant expense of having a vote, further delay in executing the plan, and circumvents the entire purpose for having a BOD.

And if the vote is unfavorable, then what is the BOD to do? The vote does not diminish the need for the refurbishment. This leads to a whole different set of problems. For once you have that vote, how do you move forward? With another vote the next time? Then do you vote on every significant decision that is normally within the authority of the BOD? That path undermines the authority of the BOD, and sets a precedence for the future.

And I do not have a copy of the by-laws, but typically a vote would be subject to quorum rules. So if not enough owners vote, then a second vote would typically be required to move forward.

And given the disinterested nature of most timeshare owners, there is no assurance that any vote would result in a course of action that would represent the will of the majority of owners or the fiduciary responsibility of the BOD.


----------



## lovearuba

*cant blame people for trying to get change*

Seems some people won't stick their necks out for change and what's right and others will.  Those of us who support the movement on this thread believe that change is needed.  Others that are owners and who decide not to pursue it either are afraid of Marriott repurcussions or do not care to change things either way.  I respect both opinions and I'm glad this thread was opened to bring attention to a serious issue.


----------



## modoaruba

*Nature of the Beast*

Timeshares in general,especially years ago, were a vehicle for prepaid vacations where if used to their max usually broke even if purchased in full ,at about 7 years.
Due to the aging of these resorts, money is needed to update every once in a while.
Costs keep on escalating in everything.
Now, due to the over abundance of resorts compounded with the bad economy, the costs of maintaining has reached levels in excess of renting.
Lesson taught to all of us that have owned for many years has been that the savings we enjoyed for a time- It's now Time to pay the Piper.
And what a time.
Like the subprime situation sort of.
The choices are to walk away,pay it and shut up,or try to change things.
For new prospects who are looking to buy, obviously DON"T. just rent without the liability.
What about the rest of us?
How are we going to change things for the better and still maintain a luxury resort?
My opinion has been that Marriott take more charge in sharing more of our costs since it is their name on the building and that is why we bought in the first place.
That would encourage new buyers due to their showing integrity.
If new potential buyers see the costs why would they buy the cow for the glass of milk.

I feel that we are in limbo.
We personally will continue to go to the OC with the regret of having purchased our weeks.
I do not want the quality to suffer though.


----------



## timeos2

*It's not Marriott's resort - it's the OWNERS resort. Why treat it differently?*



modoaruba said:


> My opinion has been that Marriott take more charge in sharing more of our costs since it is their name on the building and that is why we bought in the first place.
> That would encourage new buyers due to their showing integrity.
> If new potential buyers see the costs why would they buy the cow for the glass of milk.
> 
> I feel that we are in limbo.
> We personally will continue to go to the OC with the regret of having purchased our weeks.
> I do not want the quality to suffer though.



This is a totally wrong view of how/what a timeshare operation really is - fostered in part by the "need" to be a "XXX" (in this case Marriott but it could be Hilton, DVC, DRI, whatever).  The only thing that name offers is the initial style and cost of the development while it truly belongs to company "XXX". They develop the concept and sell the dream. Once that process is complete - the resort is basically completed and sold out - then the owners are the individual buyers of each of those intervals. The problem starts when the original builder / seller hangs on as the management. The tendency is they act like, and many owners incorrectly feel like, they are the resort owners / operators but all they really do is operate the resort for the individual owners.  The management do not and SHOULD NOT be making decisions on how things operate, what costs are and certainly not putting money into the operation as they are employed by - not owners of - the complex. It is a mess, as you see right here, when the lines get all blurred and expectations are incorrect. Responsibilities are ignored (by the real owner /operators) and handled by the wrong group (non-owner, management who should merely be implementing the owners directions).  Add in perceived or actual control of the BOD - which should be the ultimate owner watchdog and entity responsible for operations and maintenance - by the developer and things are completely out of hand. 

That is why my ideal timeshare is built with quality in a desirable area by a reputable developer who sets up the proper documents, sells the dream and turns over the operation to the owners. I'd take another step to have those owners - through the dully elected BOD - obtain the very best management company (or handle it in house IF they can) as their agents to operate and maintain the resort to the standards THEY, the owners, desire   and THEY are responsible for the costs.  Done correctly that model - which just happens to be the exact model envisioned by 98% of all timeshare documents - results  in a satisfied ownership that knows the true cost of operation/maintenance/improvements. Far too many - and this resort certainly seems to qualify - seem to think of the original developer as the "owner" and somehow responsible like a parent for the resort even to the point of paying for things they have no business being involved with anymore. Having the developer hang around as management fosters that and leads to highly undesirable situations as we see in this thread. No matter how good a name an organization has the best people to handle 10,25,50+ years of operation, maintenance and upgrade of the resort are the individual owners of that resort through the extremely powerful and accountable elected BOD.  Trusting that to a profit based developer over the long run - even just to keep the "name" on the project - is a mistake IMO. Let the resort be the best it can be on its own, let the owners  have the pride of ownership and the shoulder the costs of operation and ultimately the resort will be what the majority desire. That, rather than artificially inflated expenses and overhead for a "name", is a far better outcome. If you have problems with the management boot them. Get professionals in, get a Board you have faith in and make the resort the best you as a collection of owners can afford. The rest is fluff and needless expense that leads to high expenses, dissatisfaction and the very problems this thread so perfectly documents. Stand on your own, run the place to your  standards and enjoy. It would be far better to run things for 20-30% less yet have as good or better quality than paying the overhead for name "XXX" which is only sizzle not the steak.  It's the resort - not the name - that is really important.


----------



## ecwinch

TimeOS 

I think there are different timeshare models for different people. I personally would not want your  "ideal" timeshare, as it would require too much involvement on my behalf. And I think a lot of timeshares start on that path and over time just become a second rate resort where keeping costs low becomes the primary driver. IMHO - the ones who manage to maintain their quality are the exception rather than the rule. And those that do succeed usually are run by a small core of dedicated owners (i.e. Cypress Pointe for one), which may not be a sustainable or scalable model.

That is why I choose the name-brand chains. I want professionals in charge. I want them to enforce and maintain high quality standards to ensure a consistent vacation experience. I want to have multiple locations to choose from, with new ones added regularly. I am comfortable that I am going to pay a premium for those benefits.

There is nothing wrong with your "ideal" timeshare, it just is not right for me.


----------



## timeos2

*The lines must be clear and the value defined*



ecwinch said:


> TimeOS
> 
> I think there are different timeshare models for different people. I personally would not want your  "ideal" timeshare, as it would require too much involvement on my behalf. And I think a lot of timeshares start on that path and over time just become a second rate resort where keeping costs low becomes the primary driver. The one who manage to maintain their initial quality are the exception rather than the rule. And those that do succeed usually are run by a small core of dedicated owners (i.e. Cypress Pointe for one).
> 
> That is why I choose those name-brand chains. I want professionals in charge. I want them to enforce and maintain high quality standards to ensure a consistent vacation experience. I want to have multiple locations to choose from, with new ones added regularly. I am comfortable that I am going to pay more for those things.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with your "ideal" timeshare, it just is not right for me.



Eric - I know what you mean as I too belong to a "non-ideal" system with Wyndham. I accept the fact that I must live with their control as I realized it operates that way from day 1. "The Professionals" of that group seem far less able than the third party management our independent resort pays.    The Marriott issue is a little less clear as they truly have no business being involved with operations as a decision maker after the first initial sell out years. If they would act (and owners treat them) as simply a management under the control of the BOD there wouldn't be a problem. It would be the free choice and perceived value of that BOD - representing all the owners - that any extra charged brings in value desired and worth paying for. But, in almost every case I've looked at, the management seems to feel they are in control (and if they have the BOD in hand maybe they are!) and that leads to this type of problem.  Certainly nothing wrong with wanting the resort tied to "XXX" brand of quality / reputation. If the owners see the value that's all that matters - it's their resort and call. But company "XXX"  calling the shots can easily lead to abuses and that worries. me.  I find myself torn over MarkSue's approach as I'm all for owners rights and applaud the willingness to take on what may be seen as a problem situation. But then I read some of the "ideas" and fixes proposed and can tell they are unrealistic and completely improper given the history, age and responsibilities of a owner operated timeshare which for many years OC has been.  It is high time the BOD represents the owners and tells Marriott how things will be - not the other way around. But it is also far past the time when it is reasonable to expect big checks from Marriott tp pay for real or imagined problems as those are - and have been for over half a decade - the responsibility of the Association / BOD.  Marriott has been the hired help and nothing more for a long time. Put the responsibility, costs and planning where it belongs. It's not (or at least shouldn't be) in Marriott's hands anymore. A responsible, independent elected BOD would handle that and ensure that the owners desires are met. A BOD under a developers thumb will always bastardize the system and that can't lead to anything good. As always this sure is an interesting story and I enjoy hearing the progress and updates. I really hope it shakes out for the best of the owners and everyone sees it as a good result.


----------



## ecwinch

TimeOS,

I agree with the point that if owners do not like the way MVCI is running the resort, they should replace them. I am for owner rights.

Likewise if MVCI does not think a BOD/resort is maintaining standards, I want MVCI to dis-associate with them (as they have done with other resorts). I do not want to go a MVCI property, and find that the owners have decided to defer needed refurbishment to save money, and the resort is run down.

For that reason, MVCI needs to "tell the owners how things will be". It is their brand, they have every reason to want to maintain control over a branded resort. They have to extert more control then a non-branded resort. No business is going to allow their brand to be managed by individual local owners. If owners do not want to do that, then exercise your owner rights and end the management contract. 

The problem is when owners want it all. When they want the benefits of the MVCI brand, but do not want the heavy hand that entails.


----------



## timeos2

*You've nailed it perfectly*



ecwinch said:


> The problem is when owners want it all. When they want the benefits of the MVCI brand, but do not want the heavy hand that entails.



We are in total sync.  There is a cost for a perceived value in a brand - that's why brands command higher prices vs generic - and if unwilling to pay that premium a resort and the name brand are better off parting ways. Even if Marriott left / was booted the quality could go down - or up - based on what the owners wanted and are willing to pay for. What the units look like isn't changed by the name but by what quality is utilized.  But looking for Marriott levels as they demand them at a discount isn't a model that has much chance of success.


----------



## tlwmkw

timeos and ecwinch,

I like both of your analysis of this situation- and that's what the owners at the OC need to think long and hard about.  If this group of owners gets the control of the BOD that they want then how will they use it?  If they oust Marriott then they will save some money on directors fees but they also lose the "brand" name and perhaps some perks that come with it (43% of the roof repairs is not an inconsiderable amount, also the buying power and negotiating power of a large corp. like Marriott does save you money on new appliances/fixtures/etc.).  As you have said it can be made to work if you go that route but the owners will need to take far more responsibility.  Even then they will still have unhappy owners- there are always some.

As you said it's very interesting to see how this unfolds.

tlwmkw


----------



## marksue

No one is looking to dump Marriott.  As stated over and over, we want the board to look out for owner’s interests and not buckle in to all Marriott demands.  Many of the changes that have occurred over the last couple of months is due to the pressure put on by the owners.  

Marriott works for the owners of the OC, we pay them for a service. They need us as much as we need them, but owners need a better deal. We also need hoensty from Marriott and the board and many of us do not feel we are getting that.

Marriott has voting shares to they also have x number of weeks that are in their inventory to rent.  It is in their interests and ours to have a relationship that is not 1 sided as it is today.  Can you imagine an independent company between the hotel and Surf Club.  Marriott would not want that and neither do the owner of the OC.


----------



## ecwinch

MarkSue - I have a tremendous amount of respect for what you have accomplished so far. And certainly nothing happens without trying.

But the "one-sided deal" you are complaining about is the MVCI model for timeshare ownership. If they change that model for the OC, then they have to be prepared to do so for every resort they manage. That presents a significant change to their business, and for some of the items you mentioned a significant decrease in their bottom line. It clearly would be a good thing for owners, but clearly is not in MVCI self-interest.

Given the cost of making those changes, I think they would suffer the challenge of having a non Marriott property between the SC and the resort hotel complex in a heartbeat. Not exactly the same, but Steamside provides a hint of what MVCI is willing to endure.

Keep swinging for the fences. The physical location of OC does afford you some leverage,  but be sure you do not overplay your hand.


----------



## marksue

Eric,

All along I have propsed that Marriott sit down and discuss the situation with a group of owners.  We are not looking to make it a one sided deal, but right now we feel it is 1 sided the other way.  I do believe there is a happy median given we have the right people representing the owners.  There is so little confidence in the existing board and the up coming election that no matter what happens the trust will not return.  We need some new players who the owners feel confident will balance the needs of the owners with Marriott's needs.  But once again Marriott works for the OC owners we pay them a fee and they should not dictate what we can and can not do.

I do believe with the right people we can come up with a deal that works for both parties.


----------



## OCsun

tlwmkw said:


> OCsun,
> 
> Are you an owner at the OC?  I assume that you are by you screen name but was just curious.  I only ask because I was wondering what owners had thought of the e-mail that was posted above and you were the only one who really has addressed that.  It does seem that whether owners like it or not the expenses of doing business in Aruba are high and I don't know how the board (or Marriott, or anyone) can lower those prices.  As I said you can delay or stop the renovation but I would imagine many owners would be upset by that too.  It's a very difficult situation and I think one that all Marriott owners are watching with interest to see how it resolves.
> 
> tlwmkw



tlwmkw,
  Yes, I am an owner at the Marriott Ocean Club.  My screen name, however, has nothing to do with the Ocean Club.  The letters, "OC", are used by people from Maryland when referring to Ocean City, MD.  My husband and I own a vacation home there and spend most of our summer, "*down the ocean - hon"!*


----------



## AwayWeGo

*The Sound Of The Eastern Shore.*




OCsun said:


> "*down the ocean - hon"*


Or, as you're apt to hear it over on the Maryland side *. . .* 

*. . .* _Down The Ay-shen*.*_ 

(Not that there's anything wrong with that.) 

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


----------



## OCsun

AwayWeGo said:


> Or, as you're apt to hear it over on the Maryland side *. . .*
> 
> *. . .* _Down The Ay-shen*.*_
> 
> (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



You got it!


----------



## luckydude

*Good Intent Wrong Approach*

I am an owner next door at the Surf Club and I have casually followed this thread since it started because of my concern of the possible impact it could have on the Surf Club. I have also followed this thread because I wanted to see how Marriott treats it's owners. 

 I understand some of the concerns of the disgruntled owners however I don't agree with how they are going about trying to bring about change. I also feel that the method that they are using is like playing with fire, you might get burned really bad. Marriott is a very large, well financed company with a huge legal staff and there is going to be a limit of how much pushing around they are going to take. Since I don't have any skin in the game I don't feel that I have a right to take sides so I wont. I am not questioning your cause however I am questioning your methods of trying to bring about the change you desire. As a multiple week owner of Marriott timeshares I would be very upset if members of my resort were putting Marriott's affiliation at my resort at risk.

My question is this, why are you going outside of the normal chanels of protocol and trying to impose your wishes on Marriott and the other owners at your resort? When voting members are unhappy with the performance of an elected board and their performance thay have the right to vote those members off. They also have the opportunity to run for the board themselves or to find other willing parties to run for the board. This tried and true method has been used successfully for a very long time. Plus this method doesn't put unwanted change in jeoporady like the overthrow the board and threaten Marriott methods that I have been reading about here. 

To me the best method of achieving the goals of these owners would be to work within the system to reach their goals for change. If you are unsuccessful then you are free to sell your week(s) and move on to a resort or resort system that better meets your needs. Even though I am not one of them I am concerned for those owners that bought into the Marriott system and the Ocean Club and don't want to loose that, but might because of the methods of change that I have been reading about here.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> All along I have propsed that Marriott sit down and discuss the situation with a group of owners.



I understand what you say you want. But I think what you really want is completely different. 

Marriott has sat down with a group of owners - your BOD. I understand you have no faith in them, but they are your duly elected BOD. What you really want is for them to sit down with a group of owners that share your views on the events to date, and who will advance the claims you have made.

However, if Marriott agreed to meet with splinter owner groups individually, they would be circumventing the BOD. Which would set a precedence, and they would then need to be willing to do so for every splinter group at every resort. Next up will be PerryM's beer pong group.  

And dovetailing into luckydude's comments, it would be best to work within the system. Send a owner petition to the BOD requesting that a special committee be formed to meet with Marriott on specific issues regarding the construction process.



marksue said:


> But once again Marriott works for the OC owners we pay them a fee and they should not dictate what we can and can not do.



As I have said before, I think this is incredibly naive. You seem to indicate that if your resort decided to become clothing optional, MVCI should allow it, since they work for you. Likewise if you wanted to sub-let some space to a strip club, or to Wyndham for a sales center, or any other of a multitude of actions you might take that would run counter to their interests. You seem to want to completely ignore that it is Marriott's name on the door.


----------



## lovearuba

*ridiculous*

Some of the comments on what folks suggest Marksue is interested in are ridiculous.  People have tried numerous attempts to get the issues addressed in numerous ways.  It is not unreasonable to call a special vote and have a new election to put in place some owners that will represent the owners.

The thing that bothered me the most in all of this was the removal of the President of the board because he was looking out for the owners.  There is no excuse for that.


----------



## marksue

THis will be short and sweet.  We have tried going through the proper channels and the board has refused to communicate with the owners. No one who disagrees with the board has any chance to be elected to the board since the board choses who can run for the board.  Calling a special meeting to remove the current board will allow ALL owners to vote if they want to remove the board or not.

Since the board will not support any of our efforts or be willing to meet with owners, or allow owners who are not in Aruba to attend a board meeting and speak, or open some key decisions to an owner vote for approval is why a new approach has to be taken.

Almost 20% of the sold units has signed up.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> Calling a special meeting to remove the current board will allow ALL owners to vote if they want to remove the board or not.
> 
> Almost 20% of the sold units has signed up.



Congratulations. So the special meeting is eminent 

In the interest of those owners who might want to try this at their resort, can you walk us through how this process will work.

1. Send request for special meeting to OC BOD.
2. BOD verifies 10% of owned units are requesting the special meeting, and schedules meeting.
3. Meeting is held?
4. ???

Do you have to publish notification of the agenda prior to the meeting?
What can be voted on at the special meeting? Only items on that agenda?
Do the by-laws allow you to recall the BOD at that meeting?
How will the members who do not attend participate?
Do quorum rules apply?


----------



## luckydude

Marksue why don't you put up a candidate or candidates that agree with your position and get the 20% of owners that you mentioned to vote for them. You should win easily with these numbers. The board has to open up the opportunity to those who wish to run. I would choose people that haven't signed any petitions or been vocal on this board as your candidates. The trick is to get the nominating committee to choose your candidate(s). If they don't, get your 20% of owners to all write in the same candidate. The other thing I would do is to get yourself and as many other owners as you could to attend the next board meeting and make sure you concerns are heard. I can't imagine a large group of owners attending the board meeting wouldn't get their attention. This could all be done within the proper rules and guidelines of your resort.


----------



## lovearuba

*ecwinch*

Ecwinch (Eric) as you have stated before you are not an owner so Marksue does not need to answer your inquiries or give you every detail of information so you can purposefully go through it and provide your critique on what you disagree with and share it with Marriott.  For the owners that want to work on this, I am sure Marksue will provide information if you have signed up and are interested in this effort.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Ecwinch (Eric) as you have stated before you are not an owner so Marksue does not need to answer your inquiries or give you every detail of information so you can purposefully go through it and provide your critique on what you disagree with and share it with Marriott.



Thats a good one - that I would share it with Marriott. Like I have them on speed-dial or something. You guys and your bogeyman theories just kill me.

And beyond all of the above, I am legitimately interested in the next step. There is no on-line access to Aruba/Dutch legal statutes or the by-laws. 

I had thought that was the purpose of TUG - to SHARE information and viewpoints. Sorry if I got it wrong.


----------



## Eric

I don't think she knows everyone else can read the posts. Its like a private club and unless you think everything posted is 100% accurate from Sue, you can't join... shhh. don't tell anyone 



ecwinch said:


> Thats a good one - that I would share it with Marriott. Like I have them on speed-dial or something. You guys and your bogeyman theories just kill me.
> 
> And beyond all of the above, I am legitimately interested in the next step. There is no on-line access to Aruba/Dutch legal statutes or the by-laws.
> 
> I had thought that was the purpose of TUG - to SHARE information and viewpoints. Sorry if I got it wrong.


----------



## marksue

47 people applied for board positions.  Only 7 were spoken to only 3 were chosen. I know candidates that were more than quaified and were not even spoken with. One that we know of is pro current board and since Melissa and Steve, current board members were the nomination committe,  you can only imagine they were not going to pick anyone who disagreed with them.  

Depending on our special meeting, we are investigating a write-in candidate.


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> THis will be short and sweet.  We have tried going through the proper channels and the board has refused to communicate with the owners. No one who disagrees with the board has any chance to be elected to the board since the board choses who can run for the board.  Calling a special meeting to remove the current board will allow ALL owners to vote if they want to remove the board or not.
> 
> Since the board will not support any of our efforts or be willing to meet with owners, or allow owners who are not in Aruba to attend a board meeting and speak, or open some key decisions to an owner vote for approval is why a new approach has to be taken.
> 
> Almost 20% of the sold units has signed up.


Maybe I missed it skimming through this long thread.  But I believe that as an owner you have the right to communicate with other owners.  In some cases you can get the owners lists but most often you have to go through the management company.  You likely would have to pay for the postage and handling.  If enough people can network and ante up, you should be able to get this accomplished.  It's likely the only way to reach a majority of owners.


----------



## JimC

marksue said:


> No one is looking to dump Marriott. ...Can you imagine an independent company between the hotel and Surf Club.  Marriott would not want that and neither do the owner of the OC.



I think that is a fairly safe bet on both sides.  

I have not followed this thread for some time now, so you may already have covered this.  I suspect that a careful reading of all of the legal documents that define the obligations and rights of the parties at OC would show that Marriott has, if not control, a significant amount of leverage over its property.


----------



## marksue

We are networking and that is how we are gathering names.  Lots of people working the beaches in aruba, word of mouth and this blog.

Marriott is a contractor to the COean Club.  Marriott can walk away and the OCean Club can fire them at the end of the contract.  I beleive it is a 15 year contract.

As I said no one wants the relationship to end, but the owners are not happy now with what is percieved to be an unfair one sided relationship.  ANd our current board with their siding with Marriott and not communicating with owners just builds that distrust.


----------



## luvmypt

Sooooo, what do we do with the limited proxys we got in the mail today? They're due April 27th for the annual meeting to be held May15th. I know I don't want someone else voting for me but at the same time I can't attend the meeting.


----------



## iamnotshopgirl

Don is there a line for a "write in" candidate on the proxy? I'm not an owner at OC but I thought on the last proxy that came through for SC I recall something like that. I could be wrong as it has been a while.

bob


----------



## luvmypt

iamnotshopgirl said:


> Don is there a line for a "write in" candidate on the proxy? I'm not an owner at OC but I thought on the last proxy that came through for SC I recall something like that. I could be wrong as it has been a while.
> 
> bob



Yes, there is a "write in" space on the proxy in item 1 (2) on the page. Item 1 (1) already has a name on it and that's the current board president.


----------



## Zac495

Well what should we write or who should we vote for? Is there a suggestion being made by anyone?


----------



## luvmypt

Zac495 said:


> Well what should we write or who should we vote for? Is there a suggestion being made by anyone?



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## lovearuba

*isnt Alan still a board member*

If Alan is a board member he can have my husband and my voting rights on this one


----------



## irish

okay guys, please share what we should do here. I DON'T WANT A PUPPET..i want another ALLAN COHEN.. so PM me asap.
thanks


----------



## marksue

*Proxy's*

I got my Proxy as well. I am not going to tell anyone what to do but here is what I am going to do.

1) I am not checking Frank Knox I am putting in Allan Cohen's name in line 2 as he will be my proxy for all voting members.

2) I am not going to select any of those items so Allan can vote for the any candidate including proposing a new candidate. If you are following me DO NOT CHECK THE LAST ITEM AS IT PREVENTS ALLAN FROM VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE.  The group of concerned owners will propose alternative candidates.

3) The same as #2, I will not be selecting any of the 3 choices

4) I will select vote allowing Allan to place all votes on my behalf.

With over 1000 concerned owners and more every day, we will have A big block of votes and hopefully make a difference in the election.

In the meantime the call for a special meeting will move forward. At this time there are a few days left for those wishing to opt out and then the request will go through. An email will be sent to all owners who have signed up.


----------



## marksue

If you read the notice of annual meeting make sure you review the minutes of the October owners meeting.  Having attended the meeting the minutes do not accurately reflect what occurred in the meeting.  First of all Allan Cohen kicked off the meeting and gave us an overview of what was to be presented.  Steve Richards spoke later on for all of 5 minutes after Allan spoke for 30 mins.  The financial report was first given by Allan and then Melissa.  When Melissa was questioned she turned to Marriott to answer the questions. Also none of the communications between the owners, the board and Marriott is listed in the minutes.  Once again the board is trying to hide the true facts.


----------



## lovearuba

*Voting*

Thanks Marksue, My husband and I just filled out our form with the same voting choices that you had.  Lets hope we can see some glimmer of hope with this one.


----------



## luvmypt

lovearuba said:


> Thanks Marksue, My husband and I just filled out our form with the same voting choices that you had.  Lets hope we can see some glimmer of hope with this one.



We voted for Allan on both our proxys.


----------



## vincenzi

*Voting Choices*



lovearuba said:


> Thanks Marksue, My husband and I just filled out our form with the same voting choices that you had.  Lets hope we can see some glimmer of hope with this one.



My husband and I will do the same.


----------



## Zac495

Still confused about something - once we fill out the forms and send them in -when is the meeting for the election? When will we know? Then what happens? Can a new board change the maintenance fees? THANKS AGAIN, Mark, for all your hard work. I would LOVE to keep my timeshare - but not with those fees. I really hope Marriott stays with us  - I don't want a huge fight - I just want fees I can afford. I hope they understand we're not trying to get 400 dollar fees or anything stupid - it's Marriott and Aruba - we all knew that. But the fees are outrageous.


----------



## marksue

Ellen,

Nothing can be done to change this years fees.  Next year is another story.  They should go down with the reduced cost of energy.

The annual owners meeting has been moved from October to May of this year.  This also gets Allan off the board 6 months earlier than he was supposed to.(lets get rid of the owners voice).  What we need from the board is financial prudence.  We also need a board that will fight for the owners rights and not buckly over for Marriott.  There are happy medians but so far we have not seen them.  What we really need is transparency and a say on what happens to our property.


----------



## qlaval

I'm just back from a long vacation in Aruba and I didn't received anything...
When did you all received your letter?


----------



## luvmypt

qlaval said:


> I'm just back from a long vacation in Aruba and I didn't received anything...
> When did you all received your letter?



If you're talking about the proxy letter, we received ours yesterday and mailed them out today.


----------



## lovearuba

*yesterday*



qlaval said:


> I'm just back from a long vacation in Aruba and I didn't received anything...
> When did you all received your letter?



We also received ours yesterday and mailed today


----------



## Sunbum

*Proxy*

It will probably take another 10 days to get to Canada.


----------



## marksue

well only 8 days to go


----------



## qlaval

marksue said:


> well only 8 days to go



Lol...Thanks


----------



## Zac495

When's it due?


----------



## marksue

April 27th


----------



## marksue

*Marriott's stock holders meeting*

Note upcoming annual meeting - May 1, 2009 
I hope that some will want to attend.  

Here is an opportunity to speak out about what has happened at the OCean CLub.  All you need to do is own 1 share of the stock.  If my business schedule permits I plan on attending.  Be great to get others there as well to get up and speak about how they feel.


May 1, 2009
10:30 AM ET   

Marriott International 2009 Annual Meeting of Shareholders 
 Additional Information 
  Marriott International 2009 Annual Meeting of Shareholders
May 1, 2009 - 10:30 a.m.
JW Marriott Hotel
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20004


----------



## Zac495

I never got mine.


----------



## marksue

If you did not get your proxy I would contact Marriott and ask them where it is and ask them to send you another one. You could also send an email to Corey and ask him to get you one.


----------



## Zac495

marksue said:


> If you did not get your proxy I would contact Marriott and ask them where it is and ask them to send you another one. You could also send an email to Corey and ask him to get you one.



I emailed Corey - haven't heard from him yet, but he's good about responding. I'll let you know!


----------



## thinze3

marksue said:


> Note upcoming annual meeting - May 1, 2009
> ....  If my business schedule permits I plan on attending ....




I can't imagine that after all of this, there would even be a chance that you would miss this meeting. If you do miss it, your cause will probably be diminished somewhat. Good Luck.


----------



## ecwinch

thinze3 said:


> I can't imagine that after all of this, there would even be a chance that you would miss this meeting. If you do miss it, your cause will probably be diminished somewhat. Good Luck.



Terry - this is the Marriott Corp stockholders annual meeting, not the Ocean Club annual meeting. 

And large corp annual meetings do not always take questions from the floor. I have not been to a Marriott meeting, so I do not know if they do or not.

Not sure the cause is hurt by MarkSue's absence.


----------



## thinze3

ecwinch said:


> Terry - this is the Marriott Corp stockholders annual meeting, not the Ocean Club annual meeting. ....
> 
> Not sure the cause is hurt by MarkSue's absence.



AH. Didn't realize that.


----------



## tlwmkw

How big is this corporate meeting?  If you try to speak and they do not have time allotted for you then you may find yourself ejected by security.  I have seen this happen before at a large corporate meeting- though it was related to environmental issues and the people who wished to speak were quite radical.  Make sure you check to see if they allow for unscheduled speakers at the meeting.  You may have to have your issue added to the agenda- and they may say that it doesn't fall under the larger Marriott umbrella and should be addressed by MVCI (even though it is within Marriott).

Good luck and let us all know what happens!

tlwmkw


----------



## lll1929

I voted the same as everyone else.  Does anyone know if and when will will get billed for the assessment.  I loss my job and I need to prioritize my bills!!  Timeshare falls towards the bottom.


----------



## Zac495

lll1929 said:


> I voted the same as everyone else.  Does anyone know if and when will will get billed for the assessment.  I loss my job and I need to prioritize my bills!!  Timeshare falls towards the bottom.



I'm so sorry, Lora. I think very soon - I heard April...
PS - I got my proxy and will vote with everyone else. I think our fees will be down next year -  I believe Allen is going to be our knight in shining armor.


----------



## guam14

Rec'd materials and voted as you suggest. Hope this moves us toward some type of settlement of this outrageous situation.
I think the individuals who have suggested that if owners do not like the situation to sell out are not exactly financially astute. Who is going to buy with these problems and in this economy? We are really between a rock and a hard place. In a better economy I would be a seller. Funny since I have brought two buyers to Marriott - luckily they both bought at the Surf Club. Ask me when I would ever recommend Marriott again?



marksue said:


> I got my Proxy as well. I am not going to tell anyone what to do but here is what I am going to do.
> 
> 1) I am not checking Frank Knox I am putting in Allan Cohen's name in line 2 as he will be my proxy for all voting members.
> 
> 2) I am not going to select any of those items so Allan can vote for the any candidate including proposing a new candidate. If you are following me DO NOT CHECK THE LAST ITEM AS IT PREVENTS ALLAN FROM VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE.  The group of concerned owners will propose alternative candidates.
> 
> 3) The same as #2, I will not be selecting any of the 3 choices
> 
> 4) I will select vote allowing Allan to place all votes on my behalf.
> 
> With over 1000 concerned owners and more every day, we will have A big block of votes and hopefully make a difference in the election.
> 
> In the meantime the call for a special meeting will move forward. At this time there are a few days left for those wishing to opt out and then the request will go through. An email will be sent to all owners who have signed up.


----------



## lll1929

Zac495 said:


> I'm so sorry, Lora. I think very soon - I heard April...
> PS - I got my proxy and will vote with everyone else.



Thanks Ellen.  

I was thinking April as well, but I continue to check my acct and no bill.  I guess I won't worry about it.


----------



## marksue

Lora,

Sorry to hear about your job.  Depending on what you do I may know some head hunters fo you to talk with.  As for the assesments it was initially supposed to be in June but Frank, Melissa and Steve, voted to move it to april and next years will be do with your MF.  THis is after it was announced to everyone that both years would be June.

Another item on the proxy's.  Isnt it a conflict of interest when a person running for the board has his name as the person to be the proxy for those who can not be at the meeting?  Do you think Frank would vote for some besides himself?  Another reason there is a lack of trust of this board.


----------



## Quilter

I confess I haven't read this entire thread, just beginning and ending bits.   This is what I believe is going on--correct me if I'm wrong.

Marriott bought a building with roof problems
Marriott sold timeshares in said building without correcting structural problems
Refurbishment time comes around and Marriott wants owners to pay to fix roof
BOD President gets removed (why?)
New BOD President does not insist Marriott should be responsible for roof
Owners want Marriott to pay for roof portion of refurbishment

What I'd like to ask:

If the roof has been a problem for so many years, why didn't the previous BOD President get Marriott to fix it earlier?  

Thanks,
Suzzanne


----------



## ecwinch

Quilter said:


> If the roof has been a problem for so many years, why didn't the previous BOD President get Marriott to fix it earlier?



He did and was ousted for his efforts when the BOD decided to work things out with MVCI rather then enter into litigation. Your timeline is correct from one point of view, here is another.


Marriott bought a building
Marriott sold timeshares in said building
Roof was discovered to have problems
BOD President begins evaluating legal action against MVCI
BOD decides not to pursue legal action and try to work things out with MVCI, against President's recommendation
Refurbishment time comes around and Marriott wants owners to pay to fix roof. MVCI chips in a %  to cover the remaining time on the roof warranty (as they should - they are the contractor)
BOD President gets removed by pro-Marriott board
Change in budget (added staff) combined with inflation in Aruba results in a sharp spike in m/f
Owners begin questioning actions of duly elected BOD, and the conspiracy theory develops


----------



## lovearuba

*read the letter from the previous president*

I think the main key points that I believe came from a letter Alan Cohen the previous president documented. It is within this thread.  He was a credible person who was always open to speak with the owners at the ocean club.  The new one has no direct contact.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Too Simple ?*




ecwinch said:


> Owners want Marriott to pay for roof portion of refurbishment


What if they split the roof refurbishment costs -- the owners pay 1/2 & the timeshare company pays 1/2 ? 

I know -- too simple.  Right ? 

But if the owners opt to sue the timeshare company instead, they're apt to spend all the roof repair money (& then some) on lawyers -- & then at the end of the process they may or may not succeed in forcing the timeshare company to spring for a new roof. 

If the owners succeed, they won't have saved any money -- i.e., for what they paid the lawyers, they could just as well have paid 1/2 the roof cost. 

If they don't succeed, the lawyers will have all their money that could have gone toward fixing the roof -- & they still won't have a new roof. 

Too bad some people would rather be right than be happy. 

So it goes. 

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


----------



## ecwinch

Alan,

Actually if you read one of the replies from the BOD, it would appear that MVCI is stepping in to pay a pro-rated portion based on the expected life of the roof. Like a warranty would.

Just like if your tires go out on your car and you have a 25,000 mile warranty. They pay a pro-rated portion based on the mileage used.  They do not pay the entire cost of the tire. Roof warranties are the same.

Thanks


----------



## Quilter

So the past President wanted to pursue legal action against Marriott instead of working out an agreement?   The rest of the Board was in favor of foregoing legal fees, time and trouble and therefore pay part of the roof repair?  Is there a chance Marriott will split the cost of the repair 50/50?

Thanks again,
An Owner


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> I think the main key points that I believe came from a letter Alan Cohen the previous president documented. It is within this thread.  He was a credible person who was always open to speak with the owners at the ocean club.  The new one has no direct contact.



LoveAruba is referring to this post from Marksue regarding Alan Cohen's Letter. Pg. 2,
Pg.3


Ideally it would be from Alan himself. Apparently he can only read TUG, and cannot post here because he is on the BOD. MarkSue has indicated that this is the copy he received.


----------



## ecwinch

Quilter said:


> So the past President wanted to pursue legal action against Marriott instead of working out an agreement?   The rest of the Board was in favor of foregoing legal fees, time and trouble and therefore pay part of the roof repair?  Is there a chance Marriott will split the cost of the repair 50/50?
> 
> Thanks again,
> An Owner



That is correct. Also the uncertainity of any legal proceedings.

 It has not been reported that they are withdrawing the offer. The last correspondence from the BOD indicated that MVCI was going to pay 47% and offer no-interest financing to reduce the impact to the owners.

 It is also important to note, that for the most part, these actions have already been taken. The effort toward a more pro-owner BOD (which is a good thing), is really seperate from the roof issue. Besides being willing to resume legal action, a new BOD would be forced to adhere to any binding agreements the sitting board made. MVCI is no dummy, they would not make the 47% offer without consideration.


----------



## Quilter

Okay, I've read Mr. Cohen's letter.   Yes, I always appreciated his open communication through email.  

The 47% offer by Marriott sounds like they are trying to work with the owners.   If this is so, then couldn't it be concluded that the current BOD has actually represented the owner's interests to bring about this offer from Marriott?  And without legal action?   

This thread makes the current BOD out to be "puppets" of Marriott and not "owner friendly".   What I'd like is real evidence that this is, in fact, the case.   

The recent posts regarding the proxies seem to be planning a way to oust the current BOD and replacing them with who????   Why are the current BOD members so bad?  Facts, please, give me facts.   Not fears.   Not anger.


----------



## tlwmkw

Quilter,

Apparently the people trying to elect a new BOD want the MF's reduced and the costs of the refurbishment reduced also.  I believe they feel this could be done if there were a new BOD (though it's not really clear how this could be achieved).  The people who are upset feel that MVCI should pay all of the roof costs and not just the 47% that they have pledged.  There has been talk of class action lawsuits but that talk seems to have died down as they have realized that they will likely get nothing if they persist in this approach.

Marksue and Lovearuba are the most active in this and they haven't really addressed what the eventual goal of ousting the current board would be.

Overall I think there is a perfect storm of things that occurred- the defective roof was discovered, the board threatened legal action which then lead to the shutdown of communication from the board for legal reasons, Marriott agreed to pay some costs but not all, and then the costs of the property rose at the same time that a refurbishment was due,  and then to top it off the worldwide economic situation collapsed making everyone a little poorer than they used to be.  Combine all this with the lack of transparency and people became very suspicious of the BOD and of Marriott.  I think once all this dies down and the roof is fixed, and the refurb is done then the situation will improve because this is one of the best resorts in Aruba and will be better after the refurb.


----------



## Quilter

It just happens that this showed up in my inbox tonight.   Sounds to me like the new BOD has been busy and proactive for owners.  Also appears that Marriott is doing a decent job.    


April 2009


Dear Fellow Aruba Ocean Club Owners:

As was promised earlier in this year, I wanted to give to you continual updates on our investment in Aruba Ocean Club. We have made tremendous progress on a number of items as listed below:

UPDATES:

I: BUILDING

(A) Roof, (B) Windows, (C) Structural, (D) Environmental

A. Roof: The new roof has been completed to our highest expectations. We have had the installation inspected by no less than four industry professionals, including our insurance company, and are very pleased with the results. We have a 10 year comprehensive warranty and the ability to extend that warranty for an additional 10 year period. The cost of the new roof was 48% Marriott Vacation Club® International, 52% Aruba Ocean Club.

B. Windows: Due to the failed seals, we replaced a majority of the double pane windows throughout our buildings at no cost to the Owners. In addition we have a supply of 500 additional windows on site should there be any failures in the future. All windows, installation, shipping and reserve supply were paid 100% by Marriott Vacation Club International.

C. Structural: At the request of the Board, our building has been reviewed and evaluated for the live load capacity of the roof structure, the drainage capacity of the roof, as well as for the current condition of any exposed or hidden structural members by a professional, licensed structural engineer. In accordance with this scope of work, confirmation was received that the building is in good condition.

D. Environmental: After water penetration, sustained from our old roof and Hurricane Omar, our building has been evaluated and tested for any possible environmental concerns such as mold and mildew. I am pleased to inform you that our building received a clean bill of health not only from our own environmental consultant (which is also an Aruba Ocean Club Owner) but also those engaged by Marriott Vacation Club International and, as well as from insurance authorities.

II: 10 YEAR RENOVATION

(A) Activities, (B) Timeline, (C) Model

A. As Owners we are investing $14 million dollars in a total renovation of our property. Marriott Vacation Club International is contributing $2 million dollars to our overall costs. This renovation will be a totally new villa to include new bathrooms, furniture, flat screen televisions, carpet and many other items. We will also renovate the lobby, commons areas and hallways of all of our buildings.

B. We are well on our way with this project and will have sample boards on display in our Lobby in May 2009.

C. We will also have a completed model unit on display by late July 2009. By mid 2010 we will all be enjoying completely new villas.

III: OPERATIONS

(A) General Manager, (B) Integration

A. We are making substantial progress on improving the efficiency of our daily operations. Lower utility rates, combined with the impact of the newly installed roof, windows and air conditioning system, have dramatically decreased our energy costs. Additionally, we now have a dedicated General Manager versus a shared manager. He will work closely with each of us as we visit the property for a quality vacation.

B. We have tried to utilize the best features of an integrated campus while at the same time protecting our unique location. The back room operations such as personnel, purchasing, phone systems and security remain combined with our sister properties (Hotel, Aruba Surf Club) to save on cost issues. The amenities we enjoy such as pool, palapa and beach remain dedicated only to Aruba Ocean Club Members. I believe that is the best balance for Aruba Ocean Club.

IV: MAINTENANCE FEES–2009 and 2010

2009 Maintenance Fees were driven by several increases beyond our control, including in utility costs, water expenses and inflation in Aruba. The additional repair cost of Hurricane Omar was also unanticipated. We have also been faced with a good bit of deferred maintenance from prior spending decisions.

I am pleased to report that finances continue to improve as we move through 2009. One prime example is our 2008 year end operating results were $600,000 better than projected. Additionally, at the end of the first quarter of 2009, our electricity costs were $150,000 under budget. Other budget items have also declined and stabilized. If lower utility rates and savings, resulting from investments we have made in roof, windows and the new corridor air conditioning system continue as forecasted, an additional surplus of $500,000 for 2009 could be generated. Should we achieve our currently projected year end forecast it would clearly allow us to budget a maintenance fee decrease for 2010. I believe this is good news for our Owners.

Finally, I also want to encourage all Owners to please cast your Limited Proxy for the upcoming Annual Meeting. This meeting and election will set our direction for the next few years. 


Regards,


President, Aruba Ocean Club


----------



## ecwinch

Quilter said:


> It just happens that this showed up in my inbox tonight.   Sounds to me like the new BOD has been busy and proactive for owners.  Also appears that Marriott is doing a decent job.



Quilter - you need another glass of kool-aid. Get back in line and get your pitchfork and torch, and quit asking so many questions. All this talk of proof and evidence. Hmmph!

And since you already are an owner, next will come the posts asking if you work for Marriott. Usually they try to disqualify you for not being an owner, and then it is that you are a Marriott mole.


----------



## marksue

Yes work is being done.  The big issue is the lack of transparency.   Once Allan was forced out all forms of communications was removed from the AOC website.  No one has said why they did that.  Why do all communications’ have to go through a Marriott employee, who is a contractor to the owners?  Why is the current board except for Allan refusing to speak with owners?  Why has Allan been blocked from reading emails from concerned owners?  When Allan proposed to let owners have a say regarding delaying the refurbishments why did the board ignore him and refuse to vote on the motion?  Why when Mr. Marriott was in Aruba meeting with folks in the hotel, did Dirk and Corey arrange an AOC meeting at the same time to keep angry owners from speaking with Mr. Marriott?

There is nothing new in Frank's letter; we have been hearing the same thing once a month.  You also have to wonder why now that the proxy's have been sent out, is Frank sending an email to owners repeating the same thing Marriott has wanted him to say? 

What is being accomplished may be the best thing possible for the owners, but the total lack of transparency, lack of open communications, the way the nomination process was handled, and conflict of interest with Frank Knox being a proxy leads to total distrust of the BOD and Marriott.  Why is Frank not reminding everyone about the upcoming assessment in his letter?  He doesn’t want to remind us that it is coming.  Come on Frank time to stop the games.

Maybe if there was more communication from the board the owners would trust the current BOD and Marriott.

People have reached out to the financial analyst who cover Marriott and let them know one of the reasons Marriott TS business is being impacted and pointing them to this site. 

What we want is a BOD that is accessible to the owners and will represent the owners.  Until this issue gained momentum there was nothing coming from the BOD or Marriott.  If we had not done a thing we would still not know what is going on and would probably be in a worse position that we are today.


----------



## ecwinch

This is a long thread, so for the newcomers who have a life, I will summarize some of the answers to Marksue's questions:

- Due to term limits, Alan Cohen was scheduled to leave the board this year. A succession plan was put in place, and Alan was replaced early this year as BOD President and continues to serve on the board. That there was a succession plan has been disputed.

- The current BOD decided that communications from owners should be routed through the newly created GM position at the Ocean Club. The BOD said that this was done since most items were best answered by him in his role in the day to day operations. He would forward any questions he could not answer to the BOD.

- No one knows why Alan is being blocked from reading e-mails, but I have speculated that Alan was perceived as undermining the BOD. For instance by providing a list of owner e-mail addresses to Marksue

- There is no record that Alan's motion to allow owners to vote was seconded by another member of the BOD. Otherwise they would have voted as a matter of procedure.

- There is no evidence that the angry owners requested a meeting with Mr. Marriott during his island visit. The owners meeting is a standing meeting regularly scheduled at the OC.

- Frank holding the proxies is a matter of procedure, and in accordance with his position as board president

- The BOD has sent numerous communications to owners in an effort to communicate better

- The communications might say the same thing as MVCI is saying as it is the truth

- Marksue's efforts have definitely raised awareness of this issue, and made the BOD improve their communications. He should be congratulated for his efforts.

Just trying to add some balance. If I have any of the facts in error, please let me know.


----------



## Quilter

Thanks for all the responses.   

Sorry, I'll pass on the sweet drink that contains questionable ingredients.


----------



## billhall

*out of town until April 27th*

We've been out of town for a couple of weeks and won't be back until the 27th. Is there any way for us to vote our Marriott Aruba proxy from Hawaii? We've always appreciated Allan's help and communication.  Thanks!


----------



## marksue

Bill,

You can try to call Marriott and ask them to send another one to you in Hawaii.


----------



## lovearuba

*this thread*



			
				marksue;

What we want is a BOD that is accessible to the owners and will represent the owners.  Until this issue gained momentum there was nothing coming from the BOD or Marriott.  If we had not done a thing we would still not know what is going on and would probably be in a worse position that we are today.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> This is the point...  yeah Marksue and everyone else that tried to get some of the issues addressed, it was worth it.


----------



## marksue

To all newcomers this addresses the inaccuracies presented in Eric's summarization.



-





> Due to term limits, Alan Cohen was scheduled to leave the board this year. A succession plan was put in place, and Alan was replaced early this year as BOD President and continues to serve on the board. That there was a succession plan has been disputed.



a) There was no succession plan.  This was done through a vote by the remainder of the board and Marriott. At no point in time was there a plan.  If there was Allan would have shared that with the owners.




> - The current BOD decided that communications from owners should be routed through the newly created GM position at the Ocean Club. The BOD said that this was done since most items were best answered by him in his role in the day to day operations. He would forward any questions he could not answer to the BOD.



a) This move occurred only after removing Allan as president.  Most of the questions owners had were for the board,, yet there was no answers at all.  I know for a fact that many owners wrote and Frank would never respond to owners, nor would they get a response from Corey.  All meeting minutes were removed from the website as well as most previous communications to owners.



> - There is no record that Alan's motion to allow owners to vote was seconded by another member of the BOD. Otherwise they would have voted as a matter of procedure.



a) There was an owner on the call when Allan made his proposal and the board said they would not vote on it. There should be minutes of all meetings made available to owners’, yet you will never see them.  Even the minutes of the annual meeting are inaccurate.  I was there so I know what they wrote as minutes are not true.



> - There is no evidence that the angry owners requested a meeting with Mr. Marriott during his island visit. The owners meeting is a standing meeting regularly scheduled at the OC.



a) This meeting was not the normal weekly meeting,. It was a different day and time. The owners knew of Mr. Marriott’s visit and were told that he decided he was not coming to the hotel. The owners were told they would hold a special meeting and what do you know the special meeting was the same time Mr Marriott did show up.  There are owners who are part of this effort that were in Aruba at the time and are direct witnesses to these events, so there is plenty of evidence.



> Frank holding the proxies are a matter of procedure, and in accordance with his position as board president



a) It may a matter of procedure, but with the lack of trust this is a clear case of conflict of interest.  If the BOD wants to regain the owners trust they would have done something different.  In the past when the president was running he could not be the proxy per Marriotts governence.



> The communications might say the same thing as MVCI is saying as it is the truth



a) SOme of what they say may be the truth but when requested to back up with documents that support what they are saying they refuse to show them to owners. In fact some of what is being told to us contradicts what used to be on the AOC website.

Why has the board passed a rule that anything discussed in board meetings can not be shared with owners?  As owners we deserve the right to know about any discussions that occur that impact our property.


----------



## ecwinch

Marksue:

I respect the fact that you are fighting the good fight, and are passionate about your cause. I have said that in this thread many times.

I respect the fact that you want to view every action in a light that is least favorable to the BOD, and in a manner that supports your cause.

As your fellow owner (Quilter) opined, what is absent from your rhetoric is evidence or fact to support your opinions. As best as possible I attempted to present the facts that have been documented in this thread. I attempted to do so as impartially as possible, and I am sorry you find my efforts inaccurate. As noted by LoveAruba multiple times - I am not an owner. I am simply trying to balance the discussion.

For instance your interpretation that the board refused to vote on a motion made by Alan. Without a second from another board member, no vote is required. It rules of order 101. If you cannot get a second, then you certainly are not going to win the vote. Your reply ignores this point entirely.

I would be far less involved in this thread if more facts were documented by other owners. 95% of the "facts" come from you, or e-mails sent to you by other anonymous parties. It would be helpful if those other owners posted their first hand account here. For instance this fact - "Why has the board passed a rule that anything discussed in board meetings can not be shared with owners?" or Mr. Marriott's visit.  Where is the supporting evidence? Were you there or is this hearsay?

I will leave to the other readers to compare the two responses and reach their own conclusions.


----------



## marksue

I post for many owners who contact me and have first hand knowledge of what has occurred. They reason many don’t post is they are afraid of repercussions from Marriott and that it will impact their ability to get the weeks they want for their vacations.  There was an owner on the call, and his words were posted on here previously, where the board refused to second Allan’s attempt to let owners have a say in delaying the refurbishment. Of course anything Allan has said since he was forced out of president has gone on deaf ears.

There were many owners who were in Aruba when Mr. Marriott visited and the facts are what they are.  You don't have to believe it but there were enough people I heard from in Aruba that I stand by what I have stated 100%.

The board passed the rule of no sharing because they do not want the owners to have knowledge.  With knowledge we are a strong force that can hold them accountable.  If they do not want to be accountable then they shouldn’t be on the board.

You have to wonder why so many people still contact Allan to find out what is going.  Eric, you are not an owner as you state, and you have not gotten calls from owners.  I have gotten many calls and emails from people having just returned or on their way to Aruba discussing their experiences.


----------



## ecwinch

Marksue,

I respect that you believe passionately in your cause, and believe in what you are saying.

But, in the absence of credible first hand accounts and hard evidence, it really is just hearsay, rhetoric, and innuendo. 

And again, your response ignores the point that there was no second - so no vote. Go back and read this Post, on why having the owners vote on the refurbishment would have been a bad idea. In short, it sets a precedent, is expensive, undermines the authority of the BOD, and does not obviate the need for the refurbishment. If I was on the BOD, I would have made the exact same decision.

You present your slanted version of events, and I will do my best to provide some balance. I have no reason to be inaccurate, for there is nothing for me to gain. 

Keep fighting the good fight.

Postscript: If owners do not want to post here for fear of Marriott reprisal, have they really thought this whole thing through?


----------



## lovearuba

*repurcussions*

I have also heard from owners of their experiences with being at the meetings referenced here and their experience is exactly as Marksue represents them to be.  I have emails from them explaining their frustration.  Marksue has nothing to prove.  You can question anything you want as we know you will and I encourage those that seek change to continue to support this cause.  

You can call me whatever you like and you can insinuate that Mark is making this up but it will not change the purpose of this thread.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> I have also heard from owners of their experiences with being at the meetings referenced here and their experience is exactly as Marksue represents them to be.  I have emails from them explaining their frustration.  Marksue has nothing to prove.  You can question anything you want as we know you will and I encourage those that seek change to continue to support this cause.
> 
> You can call me whatever you like and you can insinuate that Mark is making this up but it will not change the purpose of this thread.



While passionate, this really does not introduce any new facts or evidence to the discussion.

I am not insinuating that Mark is making this up. But his passion clearly is coloring his view of the events, and could color the accounts he provides.

I am not doubting that some owners are frustrated. Owners are always frustrated by increased m/f and special assessments. No one is disputing those facts and the angst of the owners.

I am not advocating that you stop trying. I am advocating that you moderate your position. Extreme positions are rarely well received by the target of those acts.


----------



## marksue

*Call for the Special Board Meeting*

THe request for the special meeting to recall the current board has been delivered and received.

The following was sent to Corey at the Ocean Club:

Aruba Ocean Club Concerned Owners 


April 7, 2009

Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club
c/o Corey Guest – General Manager
Board of Directors
101 L.G. Smith Blvd
Palm Beach, Aruba 

Dear Aruba Ocean Club Board of Directors:

The following request is on behalf of many Concerned Voting Members of the Marriott Vacation Club of Aruba Cooperative Association. We the owners representing over 10% of the use periods owned, hereby request a duly convened special meeting of Members, pursuant to Article VI section 6.3 Removal of the Directors:  The purpose of the meeting is to recall the following members of the Board of Directors.

President: Frank Knox
Vice President: Steve Richards
Treasurer: Melissa Pericolosi

Article VI section 6.3 states that:

The calling of a special meeting of Members to recall members of the Board of Directors may be called by Voting Members representing not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes.  Notice of such meeting shall be given fourteen (14) days prior to such meeting and shall state the purpose of the meeting...

With notice of the Special Meeting a ballot and proxy must be prepared to have Members vote on the removal of the Officers of the Association.  As stated a Director can be removed "with or without cause".  

Please forward all documents prepared for the calling of the Special Meeting and we will prepare a statement to all Members for the requested action, to be included in the mailing per the By Laws.

The separate attached list represents over 10% of the voting members whose local address is The Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club, 101 L.G. Smith Blvd, Palm Beach, Aruba, and contains owners name and number of use periods owned.


Thank you:


----------



## ecwinch

Mark,

Congratulations on your efforts to date.

If the recall is successful, are the vacancies filled by appointment by the remaining board members? This is fairly standard for vacancies.

If the recall is successful, will the only board members remaining be Allan and the MVCI representive?

Does the MVCI board representative have a vote in filling the vacancies?

Prior to the recall, can one of the seated BOD members resign and have their position filled by the board prior to the special election?


----------



## marksue

> If the recall is successful, are the vacancies filled by appointment by the remaining board members? This is fairly standard for vacancies.


 yes the remaining board members will replace the removed board members



> If the recall is successful, will the only board members remaining be Allan and the MVCI representive?



Assuming the vote goes the way I would like yes that is what will be left.



> Does the MVCI board representative have a vote in filling the vacancies?



If it goes to proxy, MVCI only has 1500 votes (i think that is hte number) so they will not ahve the necessary votes to influence the outcome.




> Prior to the recall, can one of the seated BOD members resign and have their position filled by the board prior to the special election?



Yes, but any board member can be put up for recall


----------



## tlwmkw

You are well on your way to getting rid of the current board.  That shows great perseverance- good job.

Again, I ask (and you haven't answered this when I have asked before) what exactly do you plan to do once you replace the current board?  Obviously you want more transparency and that will be a good thing, but you need to have a plan beyond that.  You need to start thinking how you will reduce costs (though that appears to be happening already to some extent- see the above posts about lower than expected costs).  There needs to be more of a plan other than "I'm mad at the board so I will replace it"- if you have no plan to do anything differently then what have you really achieved (other than being more open about what is going on)?  You did say before that you don't want to replace Marriott so you cannot do anything about the management fees but where will you cut costs?  You don't want to ruin the resort by avoiding a maintenance and refurbishment.  It will cost more later to refurbish if you let it go longer- plus it will anger owners that the resort is getting "tired" and maintenance is not being done.  I really think you need to think about these issues.


----------



## marksue

Transparency and trust are the number 1 issues impacting the owners.  Everything the board has done may be the right decision, but there has been no sharing with the owners except what Marriott wants you to hear.  Yes our fees have gone up; yes our assessments are out of hand.  The problem is there has been no financial prudence applied in creating the budget.  There were decisions made that I do not believe had to be made. We want to  look at the current expenses and see where we can save without reducing the quality of the resort

Owners have not been kept informed about decisions being made, instead we have been told this is what is happening.  The building has been discussed a great deal and we will work to have Marriott step up and cover the out or pocket costs owners have laid out do to the defective building.

What needs to be done is to get Marriott to pay its fair share for the rental space.  This will help to reduce overall costs.  .  Do we need 2 dedicated Marriott employees or should we have 1 and a shared resource.  Until we have all the information to review I can't give you specifics.

We want owners to be fully aware and kept informed and they should be in position to give input.


----------



## ecwinch

MarkSue,

Maybe it is a point of order that I do not understand.

Typically when a vacancy occurs on a board, the remaining board members vote to appoint someone to fill the vacancy. So in this recall situation, what happens if the vote goes like you want, and all three members are recalled? 

Do the vacant positions get filled by a vote of the remaining board members or does an another separate owners election occur to fill those vacancies?

If it is the former, the number of MVCI controlled proxies does not come into play. There would be two remaining board members (the MVCI rep and Allan), and it would seem that their vote might cancel each other out.


----------



## Quilter

There have been tactics in this thread which tweak my suspicion that what is being said isn't in the spirit of productive negotiating.   Drama headlines "i.e.,. . .Owners Being Ripped Off. . ." and name calling i.e, "puppets".  

From what I can tell, the current BOD and Marriott took drastic actions to stop a disintegrating situation that could have lead to costly and time consuming legal action.   After regrouping they did communicate with owners in a letter last November.   Now again, after what appears to be lots of work on their part, we have received another letter of communication and progress.  

All of this without talk of legal action.   I'm very glad the BOD isn't in a lawsuit with who-knows-what outcome.    

Be careful of installing new BOD members with the mindset--threat first, demand second, negotiate last.


----------



## timeos2

*It's not a gold min if it's even possible to get rent*



marksue said:


> What needs to be done is to get Marriott to pay its fair share for the rental space.  This will help to reduce overall costs.  .  Do we need 2 dedicated Marriott employees or should we have 1 and a shared resource.  Until we have all the information to review I can't give you specifics.



That is a great idea but there may be reasons - such as easements - that where included in the original documents granting use rights for sales areas that run from a few years to virtually forever.  Those are not easily changed and may not even be negotiable.  Or they may be using space for virtually nothing that they should pay for but, especially in the current slow down, the value of the rent isn't going to cut annual fees much. In any case worth lookig at but don't plan on any windfalls from leasing sales space.


----------



## lovearuba

*A little change is better than no change*

I am very optomistic that getting members on the board that support transparency is a needed and very positive change.  No one has all the answers on how things will unfold but the actions taken will be well thought out.  

No one expects to get all of the owner concerns addressed but we at least expect someone to listen to those concerns.  If it turns out some things stay the same at least we had a say and are fully informed on why they cannot be changed.  I'm very proud of Marksue and all the other owners who have supported these efforts.


----------



## Quilter

lovearuba said:


> I am very optomistic that getting members on the board that support transparency is a needed and very positive change.  No one has all the answers on how things will unfold but the actions taken will be well thought out.
> 
> No one expects to get all of the owner concerns addressed but we at least expect someone to listen to those concerns.  If it turns out some things stay the same at least we had a say and are fully informed on why they cannot be changed.  I'm very proud of Marksue and all the other owners who have supported these efforts.



Thinking, listening and posting minutes of meetings aren't enough to get items taken care of.   What a good Board does is take action and do.   From the most recent letter from Mr. Knox we currently have a Board that does take action.   Their efforts are not being given the support here that they deserve.


----------



## Retired to Travel

Quilter said:


> Thinking, listening and posting minutes of meetings aren't enough to get items taken care of.   What a good Board does is take action and do.   From the most recent letter from Mr. Knox we currently have a Board that does take action.   Their efforts are not being given the support here that they deserve.



As a very concerned owner who has followed this thread from the beginning, I agree with the above and with the advice of other cooler heads.  We are in the process of voting on 3 BOD members.  Let's give them a chance. Vote out Knox if you dislike him.  But under MarkSue's dream agenda he would like to set up Allan Cohen to play Czar and appoint a new Board (where's that slate for us to review?)

I'm sure I am not the only owner who would resent having my vote cast in this irresponsible way.  How do people on Mark's "10% list" REALLY feel about the way he is trying to use their names?


----------



## ecwinch

Does someone have a copy of the by-laws that they can share with me?

I am really interested in how the vacancies would be filled if the recall election is successful.

Unless there is a special election to fill the board, it would seem the remaining board members would vote to fill the vacancies. 

The request for special meeting only covers the recall as I read it.


----------



## Retired to Travel

*Quoted from Bylaws*

Here it is from my docs dated May 1998 (please excuse any typos):

6.3 Removal of Directors: At any duly convened regular or special meeting, any one or more of the Directors other than Developer elected Directors may be removed, with or without cause, by the vote or agreement in writing of a majority of all the voting interests. Developer elected Directors may be removed only for good cause.

The calling of a special meeting of Members to recall members of the Board of Directors may be called by Voting Members representing not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes. Notice of such meeting shall be given fourteen (14) days prior to such meeting and shall state the purpose of the meeting. In the event that a majority of the Voting Members at a duly called and convened meeting vote to recall a Director, the directorship of the recalled Member shall be terminated effective immediately and the recalled Member shall turn over to the Board all records and property of the Association in his possession within five (5) full business days.

6.4  Vacancies on Board of Directors:  If the office of any Director or Directors becomes vacant by reason of death, resignation, retirement, disqualification, removal from office or otherwise, a majority of the remaining Directors, although the remaining directors may constitute less than a quorum, at any regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors shall choose a successor or successors, who shall hold office for the balance of the unexpired term.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> ... I am really interested in how the vacancies would be filled if the recall election is successful. ...



Eric, I'm not an owner at Aruba Ocean Club either, but everything in this thread interests me as an MVCI owner.  It's worrisome how the actions at this resort will impact all of the other resorts, because as near as I can see the BOD at MOC has followed the same procedures as are in place at all of the other resorts.

I'm not understanding the transparency issue here - the elected BOD acted in their capacity with respect to property maintenance issues and notified the owners in the usual manner (or, at least, in the same manner that actions and notifications have occurred at the resorts which I own.)

Also, I posted earlier in this thread that this year's GM update from Barony Beach included a blurb about a new email address (MVCIBBCOB@vacationclub.com) to "communicate directly" with the BOD, which contrasts with previously releasing individual board members' email addresses.  I'd like to know if this is a new trend with all MVCI properties, and if so, did the timing simply contribute to the fiasco at MOC or is the change a direct result of it?

I wouldn't be happy with the gigantic increase in fees at MOC either, if I was an owner, but the explanations of normal property maintenance, a lack of warranty coverage for the roof, insufficient reserve fees and increased island labor and utility/infrastructure costs make sense.  Looking at it from the outside there really doesn't seem to be any fault due the BOD.  I'm worried that MVCI-wide changes in policy/procedure (that are working at all of the other resorts) might be the fallout from this situation.


----------



## timeos2

*Nothing is automatic or guaranteed*



Retired to Travel said:


> Here it is from my docs dated May 1998 (please excuse any typos):
> 
> 6.3 Removal of Directors: At any duly convened regular or special meeting, any one or more of the Directors other than Developer elected Directors may be removed, with or without cause, by the vote or agreement in writing of a majority of all the voting interests. Developer elected Directors may be removed only for good cause.



So if any of the Directors are elected by Marriott controlled votes they cannot be recalled 



Retired to Travel said:


> The calling of a special meeting of Members to recall members of the Board of Directors may be called by Voting Members representing not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes. Notice of such meeting shall be given fourteen (14) days prior to such meeting and shall state the purpose of the meeting. In the event that a majority of the Voting Members at a duly called and convened meeting vote to recall a Director, the directorship of the recalled Member shall be terminated effective immediately and the recalled Member shall turn over to the Board all records and property of the Association in his possession within five (5) full business days.



The meeting creates the vote but the members (owners) still have to vote - the simple success of the Call for Special Meeting does NOT mean the Directors are removed but that every owner gets to vote in person or by proxy. There is no guarantee that the majority will vote to remove the recalled Director(s). 



Retired to Travel said:


> 6.4  Vacancies on Board of Directors:  If the office of any Director or Directors becomes vacant by reason of death, resignation, retirement, disqualification, removal from office or otherwise, a majority of the remaining Directors, although the remaining directors may constitute less than a quorum, at any regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors shall choose a successor or successors, who shall hold office for the balance of the unexpired term.



If a Board member or members are voted off then the remaining ones get to pick the replacement. What makes anyone think they wouldn't pick others that agree with the existing Board? There is zero guarantee that the dissidents choices wold be picked even if the current members are voted out. 

Quite an experience in the process but the outcome may not please those that started it.  Or they may succeed and then find it hard to impossible to change the course of the ship as much of what is underway cannot be undone or stopped without even more cost or possible loss of the Marriott management they seem to desire.  Since so many options are not on the table the narrow "acceptable" options may be extremely limited even if a new Board is created.  Owners would be well advised to carefully consider what voting out Board members really means to the Association.


----------



## ecwinch

RetiredToTravel - thanks for typing that out.

John - thanks for the post, that was my original observation.

So essentially, the "Success" plan goes like this.

The three board members are voted off. Leaving Allan and the MVCI rep to select owners to fill the three vacant seats. Their votes essentially cancel each other out, or ensure that any candidate would have to be more moderate in their approach. For instance, MarkSue or LoveAruba are unlikely to be selected to fill a vacancy. Not that they would want to be. 

And not to make anyone paranoid. But here is one strategy that MVCI could use if they do actually have the puppets:

 If one member resigns after the proxy goes out, then that vacancy would be filled by the current board in a special session of the BOD. Another puppet could be installed. Leaving four puppets and Allan.

Then the other two puppets are recalled, and their vacancies are filled - but the puppets have the majority (2 to 1), and fill vacancies with more puppets.

Similarly all the members subject to recall could resign, one after another, and be replaced by another puppet. I do not believe this to be likely unless MVCI is truly the evil developer they have been made out to be by MarkSue. But it is not impossible, that one or more members would take this as vote of non-confidence and give up their unpaid volunteer position.

None of this should be perceived as diminishing what Marksue has accomplished. I still think he did a great job.

But it might have been better to determine if all three were puppets rather than painting all three with the same brush. You might be removing someone who is not a puppet, and voted in what they thought was the best interest of the members.


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> Eric, I'm not an owner at Aruba Ocean Club either, but everything in this thread interests me as an MVCI owner.  It's worrisome how the actions at this resort will impact all of the other resorts, because as near as I can see the BOD at MOC has followed the same procedures as are in place at all of the other resorts.
> 
> I'm worried that MVCI-wide changes in policy/procedure (that are working at all of the other resorts) might be the fallout from this situation.



Sue,

Your point is one of the reasons I have been involved in this thread despite criticism from the anti-Marriott crowd. What is happening at the OC clearly has implications for the other resorts. We are all related in that respect.

Thanks


----------



## marksue

It is up to the owners to decide what they want.  There is enough distrust in the current board that over a thousand owners are supporting this effort. It is now open to the general owner population to decide what they want to do. We certainly hope for the best.  There is certainly the chance we don't have enough support. If we do not succeed we have at least let the board know there are many people angry about the events over the last 6 months and that we want change and will hold whoever is on the board accountable. 

ANy board member can be recalled so resigning and being replaced doesn't protect anyone if the owners want to recall the person.  The new board member can be replaced in the same meeting.  


 I know not everyone supports this effort, but many do.  There were some that were not in favor of this step but still support the effort of driving more transparency.


----------



## timeos2

*Not so fast. The meeting is only good for one thing*



marksue said:


> ANy board member can be recalled so resigning and being replaced doesn't protect anyone if the owners want to recall the person.  The new board member can be replaced in the same meeting.



That gets pretty technical as to what the exact procedures may be but I seriously doubt that once a new member or members are appointed - thus a new Board is formed - those members can be recalled at the same meeting. As it is a new Board there would have to be another 10% petition by owners and another meeting scheduled to remove a member of the newly constituted Board. In other words the whole process would have to start again to recall a new Board member or members.  Any other way makes no sense as the ownership has no way to petition for the recall of a non-sitting Board member or members. Once the sitting member(s) are voted on the recall is over and the new Board of existing members or those who replaced those recalled now starts fresh. There cannot be a do over of another immediate recall as I read it.


----------



## lovearuba

ecwinch said:


> While passionate, this really does not introduce any new facts or evidence to the discussion.
> 
> I am not insinuating that Mark is making this up. But his passion clearly is coloring his view of the events, and could color the accounts he provides.
> 
> I am not doubting that some owners are frustrated. Owners are always frustrated by increased m/f and special assessments. No one is disputing those facts and the angst of the owners.
> 
> I am not advocating that you stop trying. I am advocating that you moderate your position. Extreme positions are rarely well received by the target of those acts.



I dont owe you any evidence and almost feel like this thread has become a trial of everything the "real" Marriott Aruba Ocean club owners" have worked hard to change.  What has happened with our timeshare is unfair and clearly abuse by Marriott.  We are making change and it will be effective.  It doesnt matter who gets elected to the board as long as they look out for the interests of the owners and cleary communicate the owners concerns and the actions they take on behalf of the owners.  Cutting out communications to the owners is evident and totally uncalled for. 

Once again I want to thank the Marriott Aruba Ocean club owners who have the strength to continue to post to this site and voice your concerns and your support of the actions of Marksue and your disappointment with the removal of Allan Cohen.  

 

Thanks so much to the two Erics who have kept this thread alive, you are really helping our cause. Everytime you post to this site and interrogate Marksue you do a service by bringing additional attention to our plight.  We love you.:whoopie:


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> ANy board member can be recalled so resigning and being replaced doesn't protect anyone if the owners want to recall the person.  The new board member can be replaced in the same meeting.



 Without it being on the published agenda? So you can change the agenda for the special meeting without notice?

 For instance, you have requested the special meeting for the replacement of the three specific board members. If I am appointed to fill the vacancy of someone who quits because they are fed up, can I be recalled without another special meeting being called. As a rule of order, I would think someone could object since it was not on the published agenda.

And John's observation is spot on. If you could do this without it being on the agenda. Then if you did not like the replacement BOD members, you could just request another recall vote in that same meeting. Then rinse and repeat until you get the results you want.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> I dont owe you any evidence and almost feel like this thread has become a trial of everything the "real" Marriott Aruba Ocean club owners" have worked hard to change.
> 
> Thanks so much to the two Erics who have kept this thread alive, you are really helping our cause. Everytime you post to this site and interrogate Marksue you do a service by bringing additional attention to our plight.  We love you.:whoopie:



All that has been done is asking honest questions and presenting a different viewpoint. I think it has sharpened your position.

If you go back to the beginning of the thread you will see that Dave M took a similar position. 

And thank you, I am glad that I have been able to help your cause. I was beginning to think my efforts were not appreciated.

I do think it is funny that when we question you, it is putting you on "trial". What is it when you do the same of your current BOD? 

Like my Grandma said -  "If you can't stand heat, stay out of the kitchen."


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> I dont owe you any evidence and almost feel like this thread has become a trial of everything the "real" Marriott Aruba Ocean club owners" have worked hard to change.  What has happened with our timeshare is unfair and clearly abuse by Marriott.  We are making change and it will be effective.  It doesnt matter who gets elected to the board as long as they look out for the interests of the owners and cleary communicate the owners concerns and the actions they take on behalf of the owners.  Cutting out communications to the owners is evident and totally uncalled for.
> 
> Once again I want to thank the Marriott Aruba Ocean club owners who have the strength to continue to post to this site and voice your concerns and your support of the actions of Marksue and your disappointment with the removal of Allan Cohen.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks so much to the two Erics who have kept this thread alive, you are really helping our cause. Everytime you post to this site and interrogate Marksue you do a service by bringing additional attention to our plight.  We love you.:whoopie:



Wow.  Your last paragraph is combative, and the entire post is unnecessarily exclusive.  Do you really not see that whatever actions you and others effect at Marriott Aruba Ocean Club might possibly have an impact at any or all of the other MVCI properties?  Those of us who do not own at Ocean Club aren't exactly innocent bystanders here.  For some of us, we most definitely do not want to see our fellow owners taking some of the measures against our resorts that you champion.

For the third time in this thread I want to point out that Barony Beach Club has instituted a similar communication method to that BOD.  Namely, instead of releasing the email addresses of each member, as used to be done, we owners have been notified that we should direct BOD email to MVCIBBCOB@vacationclub.com.  That is exactly what transpired at your resort, isn't it?  What you call "cutting out communications to the owners" appears to me to be a simplification of communication - instead of my emailed concerns possibly sitting in one private emailbox unread, I'm guaranteed that any member of the BOD will at least see them.

That makes perfect sense to me, as does a whole host of the Ocean Club BOD's actions.  Perhaps it's my vantage point.


----------



## m61376

Perhaps not germane to this topic, but many homeowner association Boards work in exactly this manner. We own an apt. in NYC, in a co-op. If I want to contact the Board, there is a generic e-mail. I cannot e-mail an individual member of the BOD. So what Marriott is doing is not unprecedented.

I, too, noticed that the SC now has a singular e-mail rather than individual BOD e-mail contacts, and I was wondering if that was a by-product of this thread or the actions here-in. 

I am acutely aware that not only Marriott's actions at the OC have wide-standing implications, but how the owners handle their protest of the situation have the potential to impact how Marriott treats owners at other resorts. It works both ways. I agree that Marriott needs to recognize that owners deserve rational explanations for decisions made which impact their use or costs, but owners also need to deal respectfully with Marriott in order to maintain civility and a working relationship. Like it or not, however well intentioned, once lawsuits are mentioned an amicable relationship is hard to achieve. As the old saying goes: "you can win more flies with honey than with vinegar."


----------



## Quilter

marksue said:


> It is up to the owners to decide what they want.  There is enough distrust in the current board that over a thousand owners are supporting this effort. It is now open to the general owner population to decide what they want to do. We certainly hope for the best.  There is certainly the chance we don't have enough support. If we do not succeed we have at least let the board know there are many people angry about the events over the last 6 months and that we want change and will hold whoever is on the board accountable.
> 
> ANy board member can be recalled so resigning and being replaced doesn't protect anyone if the owners want to recall the person.  The new board member can be replaced in the same meeting.
> 
> 
> I know not everyone supports this effort, but many do.  There were some that were not in favor of this step but still support the effort of driving more transparency.



"Distrust by over a thousand owners--many people angry" sounds like a mob scene from an old Western.   And anger over what?   Board members not wanting to be lead into a legal battle?  Or Mr. Marriott not giving an audience to an angry crowd?   Well that one sounds like a tantrum scene from Nanny 911.  Or is it anger because someone would rather see minutes of a meeting instead of progress from a meeting?   Doesn't that ring of Dilbert?   

No, I  can't see supporting this effort as the foundation for the anger just doesn't feel right.


----------



## tlwmkw

*The proof will be in the pudding*

If you achieve the special meeting and have a vote then you will find out what the majority really does think about all this.  At the moment  we are getting a fairly one sided view of things from some very vocal owners.  I think a lot of the shut down in communication may have occurred simply because of the threats and anger shown by some of the owners.  Initially it seemed to be all about money but now it just seems to be more about communication.  The recent messages from the board do seem to answer a lot of the questions about what is going on with the budget in an open and honest way.

I do want to know how you think Marriott is able to manipulate the board so easily- if the board members are picked from owners at the Ocean Club how could Marriott possibly know who will do their bidding (even if Marriott gets to pick and choose who will be on the ballot)?  Are you saying that Marriott is planting people who will do whatever they want?  It's a pity the board members don't have a forum like this to tell their side- I'm sure legal counsel has advised them to keep quiet.  They have a pretty thankless job- and as far as I am aware they aren't paid to do it.  Hopefully this will all work out for the best.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*The Proof Is Not In The Pudding.*




> The proof will be in the pudding


_The proof of the pudding is in the eating._ 

You could look it up. 

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


----------



## ecwinch

Quilter said:


> "Distrust by over a thousand owners--many people angry" sounds like a mob scene from an old Western.



My visual was always some scene out of the Frankenstein movie, where the villagers decide to go kill the beast. Pitchforks and torches, that type of thing.



> "And anger over what?


Clearly the majority of the anger is over the spike in m/f combined with the special assessment. That the board does not publish their personal e-mails addresses and has Corey receive them is not the driving issue here. That is just a red herring.

The real issue is the removal of Alan Cohen as BOD President. That was the tipping point. And from everything I have heard, Alan was a very good BOD President. What has been reported here however is that Alan is at the end of his term limit. 

So this vote can affect that outcome as much as it can reduce the 2009 m/f or special assessment. Which is probably what a number of supporters are thinking this action can do. What most probably do not realize is that it is increasing their 2010 m/f just a little.

Quilter - I told you to drink that kool-aid. ....Why do they never listen???


----------



## Quilter

ecwinch said:


> My visual was always some scene out of the Frankenstein movie, where the villagers decide to go kill the beast. Pitchforks and torches, that type of thing.
> 
> 
> Clearly the majority of the anger is over the spike in m/f combined with the special assessment. That the board does not publish their personal e-mails addresses and has Corey receive them is not the driving issue here. That is just a red herring.
> 
> The real issue is the removal of Alan Cohen as BOD President. That was the tipping point. And from everything I have heard, Alan was a very good BOD President. What has been reported here however is that Alan is at the end of his term limit.
> 
> So this vote can affect that outcome as much as it can reduce the 2009 m/f or special assessment. Which is probably what a number of supporters are thinking this action can do. What most probably do not realize is that it is increasing their 2010 m/f just a little.
> 
> Quilter - I told you to drink that kool-aid. ....Why do they never listen???



It's the transferral of the Presidency from one person to another that still gives me lots of questions.   Why was it such an issue?   

Owners run for the Board primarily to volunteer their time and expertise towards the maintenance of an investment they have made.    While there is an element of control they are part of a team.   When the time comes this responsibility will pass to another volunteer who becomes part of the team.  

Yes, I appreciated the newsletter connection to the BOD.   More important, though, for a Board is that each member work with the other members in the best interests of the owners.  For the few years we've owned in Aruba I've felt the BOD ran smoothly and never had any qualms that it wasn't.   Then we get to 2008 and this thread.   All of a sudden the BOD has major issues to work on and at the same time there's this internal conflict.   

What is producing this internal conflict in the BOD????

From the email I received from Mr. Cohen on 11/16/08 he said  "I urge you to let Frank Knox, your new President know your concerns, if any and offer to work with him as these issues proceed to a resolution."

He didn't say to spend heaps of time and energy to oust the BOD and at the same time cause distrust, confusion and discouragement.

Was the transfer of Presidency for reasons that there needed to be a change so a new President could get comfortable with the position while the past President was still available for consultation?   Or was it because of difference of personal agenda between the past President and the current BOD?  

What's driving this major initiative to oust the current BOD?  Is Mr. Cohen at odds with all the other BOD members?   Does he support the efforts here?  I don't get that message from the above quote.   

According to his email he noted, "Thank you for your kindness in the past and although I am only one voice on your Board, I will continue to make your views heard."

Each member of the BOD is actually only one voice.   But they work to put their voices together.   Unless, of course, there is a conflict of opinion.   

There may be a group of owners who just can't handle change but the reality is members of BOD's do change.


----------



## ecwinch

Quilter said:


> All of a sudden the BOD has major issues to work on and at the same time there's this internal conflict.
> 
> What is producing this internal conflict in the BOD????
> 
> According to his email he noted, "Thank you for your kindness in the past and although I am only one voice on your Board, I will continue to make your views heard."



The split clearly occurred when the BOD decided to not pursue litigation.

Then depending on your point of view, the BOD either implemented a succession plan as they said in this communication or a coup d'état occurred as MarkSue has indicated. 

Just as the anti-Marriott faction takes liberties with BOD communication, it is easy to read from the above statement that Mr. Cohen felt he was the only pro-owner voice on the board. For me there are the seeds of discontent.

This event combined with the backdrop of a spike in m/f and a special assessment, created an environment that is very easy to sow those seeds of discontent. The following case is very is easy to make:

- Are you not concerned about the increase in m/f this year?
- Did you see the huge assessment - you know MVCI should be paying for that. They sold us a damaged building.
- And in this economy
- We have an out of control BOD. They need to be replaced
- Can you sign this recall motion

But as the BOD has communicated to the owners multiple times (LINK), the BOD had little ability to influence any of the events the led to the items above. They did not control the price of oil last year, or engineer the downfall in the economy, or the need for the refurbishment. And if they had seen those events coming, I doubt they would have decided to add the expense of a dedicated mgt team for the resort.

 And we have no indication how Mr. Cohen voted on that issue. The decision was clearly made while he was still BOD President. 

 I still have a tremendous amount of respect for what Marksue has accomplished. For balance, I hope AOC owners will look at all the facts, and not vote simply based on the economic factors that the current BOD had little control over.


----------



## m61376

Also- a side note perhaps- but whether or not the OC has a dedicated management team is not entirely up to the OC's BOD. The OC and the SC, for various reasons, have decided not to share any physical resources. Keeping that in mind, it seems to be a natural extension that their management teams would be separate as well, so that each would work in their own resort's best interests. 

Let's face it- whether or not you agree or disagree, each facility has its own positive attributes. For example, it seemed to me from various posts here and elsewhere and from hearing people talk while visiting, OC owners would have preferred to retain the right to use the SC's pool and were not happy that they no longer can use it. As a SC owner, I am glad to have a management team that essentially decided that only sharing the pools was not in the SC's best interests. Regardless of how OC owners feel, even if they were adamant about not having their own management team, the SC's BOD has the right to maintain a distinct management team. So changing that policy is not as easy as it might otherwise sound; even while it may make sense to OC owners, it likely may not make sense to SC owners, who have a larger resort to spread around the cost of such personnel making it less of an issue there.

While sharing costs may make sense as an OC owner, the sharing of facilities seemed somewhat one-sided beforehand and, as a SC owner, I personally am glad that we have our own management team advocating for the SC owners. I think that, in order to share management, the resorts would have to be willing to share all, and not just some, facilities. I think since many OC owners in particular objected to sharing all facilities, sharing none is the obviously fair solution to the issue.


----------



## ecwinch

m61376 said:


> Also- a side note perhaps- but whether or not the OC has a dedicated management team is not entirely up to the OC's BOD. The OC and the SC, for various reasons, have decided not to share any physical resources. Keeping that in mind, it seems to be a natural extension that their management teams would be separate as well, so that each would work in their own resort's best interests.



Good point.  

I only brought that up, as it is one item that anti-Marriott group has raised as evidence of a BOD that is out of touch the economic situation. When you look at the history of the two resorts, I agree that this is a natural progression.


----------



## Quilter

ecwinch said:


> I still have a tremendous amount of respect for what Marksue has accomplished.



Eric,

That's the one point where I cannot agree with you.   This effort has all the markings of a mob that is out to destroy a BOD who protected the interests of their fellow owners.   Not only that, but they've successfully stepped up to the trials of working through some major building and financial issues.  

Good BOD's are not easy to come by.   Lots of people offer to be on them but few are truly qualified.   Our current one seems to be doing a decent job.


----------



## marksue

You can call us anything you want.  But over 10% of the sold units and 1000 people agree with this effort.  This is what makes this country great, if you do not agree with what is happening, you can lawfully try and make a change.  This "mob" as you call us is taking lawful steps to address what we feel is a lack of transparency and truthfulness coming from the current BOD.

Now the owners can speak.  If the majority agree with you then the BOD remains as is.  If the majority does not agree with you then there will be a change.  If there is a change and you disagree you too can lawfully fight for change.

It was not difficult to get people to agree to this effort.  This effort started in October with my post here and the owners meeting, and by Feb we had over 1000 owners signed on.  A few people took active roles in this effort and worked to get the word out.  It is amazing what word of mouth can accomplish.

Thank you to all the people who worked hard on this effort.  Do not be discouraged by the people who are against our actions.  It is their right to speak out against us as we have spoken out about what we felt was wrong.

Good luck to everyone.


----------



## lovearuba

*Marriott Aruba Ocean on Ebay: no reserve*

Hi
I thought I would post this here because there are a lot of owners that look at this thread and you may want to take a look at the 1 bedroom ocean club on ebay, no reserve.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Hi
> I thought I would post this here because there are a lot of owners that look at this thread and you may want to take a look at the 1 bedroom ocean club on ebay, no reserve.



Not sure if you are posting this as validation that the value of your ownership has fallen or as a suggestion that an owner would want to acquire another unit. Confusing.

On a side note, readers here might want to look at the Shell Island thread over in the Hilton/HGVC forum. While it has been steadfastly maintained that removal of MVCI as the mgt company is not an objective, it is interesting to note the power that a BOD has to make that change without the approval of owners. And how things like a roof issue can escalate in that direction. Other interesting parallels:

 - BOD uses a common e-mail address
 - Resort has roof problems with seem to be the point of contention
 - BOD's legal representation has advised that BOD not communicate with members given the threat of future legal action

Any of this sound familiar?


----------



## ecwinch

Quilter said:


> Eric,
> 
> That's the one point where I cannot agree with you.   This effort has all the markings of a mob that is out to destroy a BOD who protected the interests of their fellow owners.   Not only that, but they've successfully stepped up to the trials of working through some major building and financial issues.
> 
> Good BOD's are not easy to come by.   Lots of people offer to be on them but few are truly qualified.   Our current one seems to be doing a decent job.



I respect that opinion.

To clarify, my respect is in the accomplishment of getting the special meeting called, and not in his objective or the actions he took to achieve the recall. 

Despite significant criticism of his actions, MarkSue has been able to stay the course, and do something most of us thought would be difficult - - to get 10% of the owners to agree to request the recall of the board.

I do not respect the tactics he use to accomplish the recall, or that he is not evaluating the BOD on their individual merits. On that point I hope I have been very clear.

As he has noted - this is the right of the owners to request the recall, and I respect his perseverance in pursuing the exercise of that right.


----------



## modoaruba

*ebay*

I saw a listing for the Surf Club for a buy now for $15,000 with a fee of $1,100 annually.
Lets take 10 years multiplied by $1,100 plus $15,000 which is $26,000. That is $2,600/week barring no increase in fees.
Now take 20 years multiplied by $1,100 plus $15,000 which is $37,000. That is $1,850/week.
RedWeek has weeks renting for far less to a little bit more.
The average week rental could get you about 25 to 30 years of rental if not more without buying. That is just the Surf Club for example.
The fees have escalated to such a high cost in much of the timeshare community along with an over abundance that ownership is questionable.
Do you now blame the ebay listing without a reserve?
Marriott is now offering 25% off additional weeks for owners who want additional weeks. Use the new cost with the current fees. Do the math.
Still makes no financial sense.


----------



## Luckybee

Quilter said:


> It's the transferral of the Presidency from one person to another that still gives me lots of questions.   Why was it such an issue?
> 
> Owners run for the Board primarily to volunteer their time and expertise towards the maintenance of an investment they have made.    While there is an element of control they are part of a team.   When the time comes this responsibility will pass to another volunteer who becomes part of the team.
> 
> Yes, I appreciated the newsletter connection to the BOD.   More important, though, for a Board is that each member work with the other members in the best interests of the owners.  For the few years we've owned in Aruba I've felt the BOD ran smoothly and never had any qualms that it wasn't.   Then we get to 2008 and this thread.   All of a sudden the BOD has major issues to work on and at the same time there's this internal conflict.
> 
> What is producing this internal conflict in the BOD????
> 
> From the email I received from Mr. Cohen on 11/16/08 he said  "I urge you to let Frank Knox, your new President know your concerns, if any and offer to work with him as these issues proceed to a resolution."
> 
> He didn't say to spend heaps of time and energy to oust the BOD and at the same time cause distrust, confusion and discouragement.
> 
> Was the transfer of Presidency for reasons that there needed to be a change so a new President could get comfortable with the position while the past President was still available for consultation?   Or was it because of difference of personal agenda between the past President and the current BOD?
> 
> What's driving this major initiative to oust the current BOD?  Is Mr. Cohen at odds with all the other BOD members?   Does he support the efforts here?  I don't get that message from the above quote.
> 
> According to his email he noted, "Thank you for your kindness in the past and although I am only one voice on your Board, I will continue to make your views heard."
> 
> Each member of the BOD is actually only one voice.   But they work to put their voices together.   Unless, of course, there is a conflict of opinion.
> 
> There may be a group of owners who just can't handle change but the reality is members of BOD's do change.



For a myriad of reasons I have stayed out of this thread of late and I am not going to get involved in a debate with anyone. That said, we also felt as you do about our ownership which we had from inception at the MOC, and the manner in which the board use to be run . We no longer feel that way.If you are serious Quilter, and truly want to know how Mr Cohen feels about the situation I suggest you contact him off this board. He remains as he always has, available to all owners. As I indicated, if you really are serious about wanting facts and evidence I would be surprised if you were not enlightened , shall we say, by the conversation.


----------



## Quilter

marksue said:


> You can call us anything you want.  But over 10% of the sold units and 1000 people agree with this effort.  This is what makes this country great, if you do not agree with what is happening, you can lawfully try and make a change.  This "mob" as you call us is taking lawful steps to address what we feel is a lack of transparency and truthfulness coming from the current BOD.
> 
> Now the owners can speak.  If the majority agree with you then the BOD remains as is.  If the majority does not agree with you then there will be a change.  If there is a change and you disagree you too can lawfully fight for change.
> 
> It was not difficult to get people to agree to this effort.  This effort started in October with my post here and the owners meeting, and by Feb we had over 1000 owners signed on.  A few people took active roles in this effort and worked to get the word out.  It is amazing what word of mouth can accomplish.
> 
> Thank you to all the people who worked hard on this effort.  Do not be discouraged by the people who are against our actions.  It is their right to speak out against us as we have spoken out about what we felt was wrong.
> 
> Good luck to everyone.



Mark,

Getting a crowd to follow you isn't always impressive.    Just step off the curb in Chicago against the don't walk light and you'll probably have a dozen people join you.  

In February you contacted me with a private message and, in my opinion, stated your followers don't need much more than to give you their personal information:

Suzanne,

There is nothing for you to take on. All I would need from you, if you owuld liek to joint he 500+ owners is the number fo units you own, name and address. We are about to approach the board for a special meeting to recall the current board and put in place an owner friendly board. All I am asking is your support, nothing for you to do.

thanks

MArk


Do your followers really know your objectives?   I've had one of them message me and she's under the impression you are going to reduce maintenance fees.    Please be transparent and truthful and tell us how you plan to do this.   

Please also be transparent and truthful and tell us if the replacement BOD has the objective of pursuing a class action against Marriott?


----------



## Quilter

Luckybee said:


> For a myriad of reasons I have stayed out of this thread of late and I am not going to get involved in a debate with anyone. That said, we also felt as you do about our ownership which we had from inception at the MOC, and the manner in which the board use to be run . We no longer feel that way.If you are serious Quilter, and truly want to know how Mr Cohen feels about the situation I suggest you contact him off this board. He remains as he always has, available to all owners. As I indicated, if you really are serious about wanting facts and evidence I would be surprised if you were not enlightened , shall we say, by the conversation.



I have emailed him.   We'll wait for an answer.


----------



## marksue

> There is nothing for you to take on. All I would need from you, if you would like to joint he 500+ owners is the number fo units you own, name and address. We are about to approach the board for a special meeting to recall the current board and put in place an owner friendly board. All I am asking is your support, nothing for you to do.



Here is the rest of the email conversation you and I have had.



> Suzzane,
> 
> Have you and I been in touch on what is going on with the OC and the efforts undertaken. We are in the process of getting enough names to call a special meeting and recall the board. I will be home this evening if you would like to discuss it.
> 
> If you haven’t given the information give me your email address and I will send you a form we are getting filled out to capture info on owners to present to Marriott when we request the meeting.
> 
> Hello marksue (which one am I talking to?)
> 
> Thank you for your recent help on the AOC maintenance fees.
> 
> No, we haven't talked regarding the Board issues going on at the resort. I've had some trouble since the fall learning how to manage stress and am steering clear of any extra items in that area right now. As much as we hope things will turn out right in the long run, we're not the ones to be taking on anything more at this time.
> 
> Suzzanne






I have been upfront.  My message to you is exactly the message I have given everyone.  I told you what we are trying to do.  I did not promise you anything else.   I never promised anyone nor will I that we would cut MF.  I know you will not find where I have promised to cut fees.  When people have asked me about reducing fees, I have told them there is nothing we can do this year, but looking at next years hopefully there is a board in place that will provide the financial responsibility we need.  Additionally with the reduction in energy costs there should be a reduction in fees.


----------



## Quilter

marksue said:


> Here is the rest of the email conversation you and I have had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been upfront.  My message to you is exactly the message I have given everyone.  I told you what we are trying to do.  I did not promise you anything else.   I never promised anyone nor will I that we would cut MF.  I know you will not find where I have promised to cut fees.  When people have asked me about reducing fees, I have told them there is nothing we can do this year, but looking at next years hopefully there is a board in place that will provide the financial responsibility we need.  Additionally with the reduction in energy costs there should be a reduction in fees.



There wasn't anything in the first part of our email exchange that is pertinent to this issue here.   I didn't copy it to the message as I didn't really want the world to know I was having a problem with stress.   Thank you for sharing  

No, you didn't promise me anything and I didn't say you did.   I was careful to even omit the word promise.   The point I made was that one of your followers wrote to me saying:  "I really thought that Marksue is after lowing our fees."    So you have 1,000 people signed on, some of them believing you are after lowering the fees.   Since you have your followers email addresses there's no telling what you have communicated to them off this message board.   At least one of them has signed with you because he or she is upset with the maintenance fees and thinks your plan is going to fix that.   

Do you care what they believe or were you just after their names and info for your own personal agenda of having the control to recall the BOD or initiate a lawsuit if you so desired?   From Mr. Knox's recent letter, we have a BOD who is working responsibly to get our maintenance fees in control.   They have been the ones making progress towards getting our building refurbished so energy costs will be lowered.   They recognized a need to move forward and get the building up to speed with other properties as it was beginning to look tired.   A lawsuit wouldn't have moved anything forward.   It would have eaten time, energy and resources.   Without moving forward and getting the roof and windows fixed, further energy loss and damage would have been the result of future storms, driving refurbishment costs/maintenance fees even higher.   

You didn't answer my question regarding the "owner friendly" BOD you plan to put in place.   Are you, and are they, planning to pursue a class action against Marriott?


----------



## lovearuba

*Its not all about Marksue*

This is a concerted effort, its not all about Marksue.  Everyone that has opted to sign a letter is signing it because they have the same interest. 

Getting owners on the board that believe the board actions should be transparent is the number one goal.  Reducing maintenance fees should be a priority for the entire board and for Marriott.  We are not looking to reduce fees by compromising quality.  We want to know what those fees are being used for and ideally have a say in eliminating costs that are not in the best interest of the owners.  

I dont understand why folks are opposed to having a board that will share information with the owners.  Some posters have indicated that other timeshares are doing this.  I'm not sure why that is important and why that's okay.  Its not important to me, I own one timeshare and that's the one I want information about.  I want to know where my money is spent and why I am paying maintenance fees that are higher than what I can rent the unit for. It just does not make sense.  My fee went from $1100 last year to $1670.00 this year plus an expected $700 in a special assessment fees.  I have a right to know why these fees are so high and want members on the board that have my interests in mind.


----------



## marksue

As I have stated previoulsy there is no intent to file a class action lawsuit.  What we want in the BOD is an owner friendly board that will look after the owners rights, which we feel is not the case now.  No where in the previous communication between us did I say we were pursing a class action suit.

I can not control what 1 individual thinks we are going to do. I have been quite clear with everyone I speak to regarding the groups intent.  I had someone even write to me that now we will have lower fees and I stressed there is nothing that can be done with this years fees but with the reduction in energy costs we should see fees go down.  There are certianly steps that can be taken to lower fees by getting Marriott to pay a fair share for space they utilize. Until we see the financials I cant tell you or anyone else where there could be additional savings.


----------



## m61376

marksue said:


> There are certianly steps that can be taken to lower fees by getting Marriott to pay a fair share for space they utilize.



While I agree in principle that Marriott or any tenant should be paying their fair share for the space they occupy, depending upon the deal they gave themselves in the original documents this may or may not be possible, although logically and in fairness it should be. Has anyone poured through the original resort legal documents to see if Marriott was guaranteed usage of space and if a fee for such usage was set? 

Unfortunately this issue exists not only with developers and timeshares but in many real estate developments as well. For example, in NYC when many buildings went co-op in the mid '80's corporate groups that bought blocks of apartments as sponsors also bought rental rights to retail space at a fixed price, many with long term leases. Twenty-five years later the fair market rentals of such spaces have multiplied, but there is nothing the co-op boards, however well intentioned, can do to break these iron clad agreements. Logically the retail space should be a big money maker, but the co-ops cannot reap the benefits. Although not perceived as fair, they're basically stuck. 

Don't get me wrong- I agree that Marriott should pay its fair share. I'm just pointing out that they may have such a sweetheart deal and it may be something owners just have to swallow. Hopefully it not through that avenue there are other cost cutting measures that can be implemented.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> ... I dont understand why folks are opposed to having a board that will share information with the owners.  Some posters have indicated that other timeshares are doing *this*.  I'm not sure why that is important and why that's okay...



If by "*this*" you mean that other timeshares have also changed their practice from releasing individual BOD members' email addresses to a single non-specific address, it's important because it might prove that it is not a single malicious procedure being implemented at only your resort in retaliation for some perceived wrong.

I don't understand how it translates to a BOD not sharing information with owners, though, because the communication is simplified, not stymied, and that's what makes it more than okay.  Efficiency is a good thing.

Of course if by "*this*" you mean something totally different, nevermind.


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> ... Until we see the financials I cant tell you or anyone else where there could be additional savings...



All MVCI resorts include an Operating Budget with the annual maintenance fee billings to the owners.  Are you expecting that your BOD should provide owners with more than that standard?  If so, how do you intend to force MVCI to provide such a thing if they're not legally required to do so?  In fact if they have or can specifically forbid the BOD to release financials other than the Operating Budget, you have no recourse to make the demand.


----------



## modoaruba

*ebay*

1BR gold justsold for $8,600 on ebay.
If I sell one of our weeks  for that we could rent from Redweek for about 15 years (if you add in the other fees )without the liabilities and all this BS.

Just venting.


----------



## qlaval

modoaruba said:


> 1BR gold just sold for $8,600 on ebay.
> ...



That's more then some previous transactions, see Dioxide ROFR list.
The last two were sold $7,000 and $7,600. (on that list...)
We don't know about the rest so probably more for those.

I would say that the value for a Gold week with an annual $1,200 maintenance fee is quite good.
More how many owners are really aware of what's going on except for higher MF?
Not many so the influence on the market is probably not very high...


----------



## m61376

Given the market today, that isn't that surprising a price for a 1BR. Like most resorts, I think the 2BR's are better values. What is surprising was the relatively small activity the last few hours of the auction, with the final bid quite awhile before the end. Although it did more than double in the last few hours- for awhile I thought it might set a new record low.

And I agree. Likely most buyers are unaware of the special assessment and are looking at it as an amazing deal. Hey, not too long ago people paid close to double for that week (I am not sure what the 1BR's went for, but I am assuming 18K is pretty close to the developer price). When you look at it that way, despite some of the other Marriott's going for as low as 25%, the OC is still holding about 50% value. It seems to me the Aruba weeks have "only" taken about a 10-15% hit in this economy, and considering what's happening elsewhere, that's not too bad.


----------



## marksue

I just got a call from an owner who is now in Aruba.  A friend of thiers went to a sales presentation today and was told by a gentleman named Eugene, one ofthe sales guys, that 60% of the owners of the Ocean and Surf Club want to integrate the properties.  He also said Marriott is looking to integrate all 3 properties.  So Marriott is telling this to all potential purchases yet we are being told it wont happen.  I wonder who is lying.


----------



## billymach4

I know Eugene and he is very honest! He would never lie.


----------



## iamnotshopgirl

marksue said:


> I just got a call from an owner who is now in Aruba.  A friend of thiers went to a sales presentation today and was told by a gentleman named Eugene, one ofthe sales guys, that 60% of the owners of the Ocean and Surf Club want to integrate the properties.  He also said Marriott is looking to integrate all 3 properties.  So Marriott is telling this to all potential purchases yet we are being told it wont happen.  I wonder who is lying.



As an owner at SC this is the first I am hearing of this. I would think that with 60% of owners in the know it would be plastered all over Tug. I can not recall any thread even mentioning this. I wanted to be clear on the usage of the word "integrate" as used in marksue post. From the dictionary:

Main Entry: in·te·grate
Function: verb
Pronunciation: 'in-t&-"grAt
Inflected Form(s): -grat·ed ; -grat·ing
Etymology: Latin integratus, past participle of integrare, from integr-, integer
transitive senses
1 : to form, coordinate, or blend into a functioning or unified whole : UNITE 
2 : to find the integral of (as a function or equation) 
3 a : to unite with something else b : to incorporate into a larger unit 
4 a : to end the segregation of and bring into equal membership in society or an organization b : DESEGREGATE <integrate school districts> 
intransitive senses : to become integrated


If marksue's post is correct I think there would be a lot of "discussion" from people who frequent this board on the subject. IMHO

bob


----------



## modoaruba

*integrate*

I could see 60%+ Who would like to integrate from the SC.
Anyone from the OC who would like to see this should have their head examined.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> I just got a call from an owner who is now in Aruba.  A friend of thiers went to a sales presentation today and was told by a gentleman named *Eugene, one ofthe sales guys,* that 60% of the owners of the Ocean and Surf Club want to integrate the properties.  He also said Marriott is looking to integrate all 3 properties.  So Marriott is telling this to all potential purchases yet we are being told it wont happen.  I wonder who is lying.



Obviously, I am a known critic of this cause. But really Marksue,  is this what you have resorted to - passing on rumors from timeshare sales people? On this board?

On TUG, what is the number one rule of information from sales people?

Is this any way to get support for your efforts? You know who is lying. It is not Marriott, and you know better than this.

I have a certain amount of respect for what you have achieved. Do not eliminate it by passing on rumors from salespeople.

And I am not suggesting that the rules of heresy apply, but this is information from a friend of a friend, about the statements from a timeshare sales person.

What's next? Rumors from the pot dealers on the beach?


----------



## m61376

What I find curious is that on this Board there are several OC and SC owners, yet none of us have posted that we were asked whether we would favor such integration. Yet 60% of those polled are supposedly in favor. Hmmm...why not 100%, since the poll seems either to be non-existent or very limited in scope.

Two years ago this discussion was plastered on the forums and both OC and SC owners had correspondence with their respective BODs. From my understanding at the time (although I could be wrong), a lot of OC owners wanted to be able to use the SC pool and while the pools were being shared, there were many more OC owners at the SC's pool than vice versa. However, OC owners did not want to share their palapas and wanted to retain complete rights to their beach facilities. Thus, the sharing was somewhat one-sided and SC owners did not want to continue this arrangement. There were OC owners who did not want sharing of any facilities and OC owners who were angered at no longer having access to the SC pool, but there was no support for sharing the beach facilities in compensation for access to the SC's pool facilities. From what I heard there were a lot of complaints from SC owners and, in order to be fair to both parties, since owners weren't supportive of sharing everything the respective BODs decided to share nothing. 

The final separation was the hiring of resort specific management and the SC's exclusion from the OC's very nice website.

I think Eugene has a vivid imagination....


----------



## modoaruba

*by the way*

When we were presented with a pre construction opportunity to buy at the SC, once seeing the enormity of the complex (which some refer as the tenements) our concern was the amount of beach front would never be sufficient for such a huge complex.
The reply we got from the sales staff was that most owners would be at the Lazy River.
Also was assured at that time that the OC would have the only rights to the OC beach front.
Over built and over sold. We just love corporate America.
As little time we have to spend on vacation, it is a horror to see the fights on the beach with who is entitled to what hut, which beach, and what time you left the hut unattended.
Marriott created this monster by over building the SC.
The OC should not have to pay for the greed by giving up our ocean front.
Enough said.


----------



## m61376

Modoaruba- while I don't agree with your assessment of the SC (and, in fact, prefer it over the OC for several reasons), I can understand OC owners not wanting to relinquish any part of their facilities. I think the two BODs did the only fair thing- if the majority of owners couldn't agree to share all, they should share none and remain distinct. One sided sharing is inequitable; neither party should be forced to share their better facility. Giving owners at each property access to what they purchased and keeping the facilities distinct is a fair solution to all. 

Personally, even though  I never saw the poll which was referenced, I'd vote in favor of all three properties sharing facilities (and not because I am an unhappy SC owner; quite the opposite- I love the facilities). I am not sure the majority of SC owners would and, if the voices here are representative of OC owners in general, I surmise there would only be a minority in favor of integrating the properties. As such, keeping them separate, despite the cost savings, seems the only practical solution.

The reality is the best way to cut costs and reduce MF's is to integrate the facilities. Overlapping personnel costs, supply costs, unified laundry and other services, etc. could be curtailed and each facility would likely enjoy a substantial savings (which, after all, is a bit pertinent to this thread). But these potential savings come at a cost that it appears, at least, most OC owners would rather not accept.


----------



## tlwmkw

*Clearly it was the salesman who did it....*

I don't think all you Surf Club and Ocean Club owners need to worry.  This seems to just be a rumor put out by a salesman who is obviously not telling the truth.  As Eric says above this is just a red herring and didn't need to be brought into this thread.  Again there is the implication that Marriott put this out but clearly since no one else has reported anything remotely along these lines (and the clear split between the two resorts is reinforced by the hiring of the new GM for the OC) it is just a single sales guy who put this out there in one conversation with one person.  I wouldn't worry about this at all.


----------



## lovearuba

*Recent letter from the board*

Hi
I do think this is the appropriate thread to post information from this since it is one of the items Marriott outlined in their recent letter to owners.  I'm not sure why people would object to that concern. Its one of the concerns I wanted in our list of questions to the board.  They did respond to it so I would like to believe it means something. Guess time will tell.


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> I just got a call from an owner who is now in Aruba.  A friend of thiers went to a sales presentation today and was told by a gentleman named Eugene, one ofthe sales guys, that 60% of the owners of the Ocean and Surf Club want to integrate the properties.  He also said Marriott is looking to integrate all 3 properties.  So Marriott is telling this to all potential purchases yet we are being told it wont happen.  I wonder who is lying.


I'm not an owner there and my only real interest is simply in how Marriott handles themselves.  However, a second hand report of something told by a salesperson during a presentation is not "Marriott is telling this to all potential purchases".  It is valid to report that the salesperson stated such but hardly constitutes real information.  I don't think that Marriott could combine the management without a vote of the members but I'd have to see the legal documentation from there to be more certain.

As for sharing amenities, I'd agree it should be all or none.  Very unreasonable and childish to think that the pools should be shared but not the beach facilities.  The Beach itself is public in Aruba.


----------



## ecwinch

Dean said:


> I'm not an owner there and my only real interest is simply in how Marriott handles themselves.  However, a second hand report of something told by a salesperson during a presentation is not "Marriott is telling this to all potential purchases".



Unfortunately it is characteristic of the tactics that have colored this crusade since the beginning. Take one questionable fact, and extrapolate it into  "evidence" the demonstrates the MVCI conspiracy.

i.e. Owners meeting is scheduled the same day Mr. Marriott is on the island = MVCI mgt is trying to keep owners from meeting with Mr. Marriott.

And why do we even find it pausible that a billion dollar corporation like MVCI would engage in such unseamly tactics for a small resort like the Ocean Club. The risk/reward ratio just does not make sense.

I am glad that some reasonable owners are starting to see the fallacy of logic involved here. Letting the vocal minority take control can place you on a path that you may not like. Again, check out the HGVC Shell Island thread for a case in point.


----------



## Sunbum

m61376 said:


> What I find curious is that on this Board there are several OC and SC owners, yet none of us have posted that we were asked whether we would favor such integration. Yet 60% of those polled are supposedly in favor. Hmmm...why not 100%, since the poll seems either to be non-existent or very limited in scope.
> 
> Two years ago this discussion was plastered on the forums and both OC and SC owners had correspondence with their respective BODs. From my understanding at the time (although I could be wrong), a lot of OC owners wanted to be able to use the SC pool and while the pools were being shared, there were many more OC owners at the SC's pool than vice versa. However, OC owners did not want to share their palapas and wanted to retain complete rights to their beach facilities. Thus, the sharing was somewhat one-sided and SC owners did not want to continue this arrangement. There were OC owners who did not want sharing of any facilities and OC owners who were angered at no longer having access to the SC pool, but there was no support for sharing the beach facilities in compensation for access to the SC's pool facilities. From what I heard there were a lot of complaints from SC owners and, in order to be fair to both parties, since owners weren't supportive of sharing everything the respective BODs decided to share nothing.
> 
> The final separation was the hiring of resort specific management and the SC's exclusion from the OC's very nice website.
> 
> I think Eugene has a vivid imagination....



During the Sales presentations at the Ocean Club, back in the early 2000's, they started making us aware that the Surf Club was going to be built. Owners were not happy about it. The Sales people then told us that the owners at the O.C. could use the Lazy River, that would help offset the inconvience and over crowding of the area.

I think that is why you initially saw O.C. owners at the Lazy River. And then they went back on their word and said O.C. owners could no longer use it. Yes, it was a one sided deal, they made it that way to quiet the O.C. owners for a few years while they built/sold the S.C.

INHO keep them seperate, they are unique properties and each have there own benefits.


----------



## lovearuba

*Sunburn*



Sunbum said:


> During the Sales presentations at the Ocean Club, back in the early 2000's, they started making us aware that the Surf Club was going to be built. Owners were not happy about it. The Sales people then told us that the owners at the O.C. could use the Lazy River, that would help offset the inconvience and over crowding of the area.



My experience was the same.  I was also told that we would be sharing everything except the beach.  That included the pools at all three places (hotel, surf club and ocean club).  I would also like to keep them separate.


----------



## m61376

It is unfortunate that OC owners were initially promised that everything but the beach would be shared. I think what happened is that they miscalculated the relative demand, assuming equal numbers of SC owners would like to enjoy the OC facilities as OC owners who wanted to enjoy the Lazy River. It became a very one sided influx into the SC's pool and SC owners objected to accommodating OC guests without enjoying equal compensation. 

Although they may have been later told they would have access to the SC pool, the only fair thing is to give each owner what they bought into, which is use of their own facilities, unless they are willing to share all facilities. I think it would be nice if all Marriott properties shared facilities, but I know others don't agree, so I am fine with that. I think the Boards were wise to recognize that sharing can't be one-sided; although that wasn't their initial intent, in reality that's what had happened and is why they made the change.


----------



## ecwinch

I thought the beaches in Aruba were public. So they promised that you would share everything but the one thing that you legally are obligated to share.

I do not even see how MVCI could make that obligation without some form of agreement between the two HOA's. And even that agreement could be subject to cancellation by either BOD. Which is what I thought happened here.

 I am not doubting that some salesperson somewhere said that.


----------



## modoaruba

*sharing*

Yes Aruba's beaches are all public.
We have seen numerous people from other resorts or even off cruise ships utilize the beach.
No complaints there.
It's when the palalpas are taken by others is where the concern is.
We have to get up early to get a palapa.
If they were shared by the resorts it would be a nightmare.
At full capacity, the OC at times runs out of palapas.
Now imagine both resorts at full capacity sharing.
That is a concern unless someone can tell us something different.Are we missing something?


----------



## luvmypt

From the first row of palapas to the resort is not public beach. That stretch of sand is included as resort property when they're built. Only the beach in front of the first row of palapas to the sea is public. That goes for all resorts. If the beach from the sea to the resort's back door was public, then the resorts couldn't build the palapas to begin with.


----------



## lovearuba

*aruba beach public*

I thought all of Arubas beaches were public and that anyone could just bring their own chair and sit anywhere they wanted to.  This is why I worry when I looked at that huge condo going up across from the surf.  All those folks would have access to the beach.  It would just be out of hand with overcrowding and not make sense to go to the Marriott.  I guess the developers must have run out of money and had to stop building.  As for the people of Aruba, they should have access to the beaches, its their island.


----------



## m61376

lovearuba said:


> I thought all of Arubas beaches were public and that anyone could just bring their own chair and sit anywhere they wanted to.  This is why I worry when I looked at that huge condo going up across from the surf.  All those folks would have access to the beach.  It would just be out of hand with overcrowding and not make sense to go to the Marriott.  I guess the developers must have run out of money and had to stop building.  As for the people of Aruba, they should have access to the beaches, its their island.



I thought that was the case also. Have they completely stopped building? When I was there in Feb. they were working on it, although there seemed to be minimal construction staff.

I have wondered if they made any arrangement with the Holiday Inn, which is right in front of them. I had heard rumors to that effect, but nothing substantiated. I did notice that there were lots of cabanas, presumably rentals, further back by the bar/restaurant behind the pier. I was wondering if they were setting that up for future use for condo owners and/or cruise ship passengers, but I only saw them used occasionally the week I was there.


----------



## Dean

m61376 said:


> It is unfortunate that OC owners were initially promised that everything but the beach would be shared. I think what happened is that they miscalculated the relative demand, assuming equal numbers of SC owners would like to enjoy the OC facilities as OC owners who wanted to enjoy the Lazy River. It became a very one sided influx into the SC's pool and SC owners objected to accommodating OC guests without enjoying equal compensation.
> 
> Although they may have been later told they would have access to the SC pool, the only fair thing is to give each owner what they bought into, which is use of their own facilities, unless they are willing to share all facilities. I think it would be nice if all Marriott properties shared facilities, but I know others don't agree, so I am fine with that. I think the Boards were wise to recognize that sharing can't be one-sided; although that wasn't their initial intent, in reality that's what had happened and is why they made the change.


The question is who promised and was it in writing.  If only a salesperson promised it means absolutely nothing as we all know.  It's only what's in writing that has meaning and even much of that can change later.


----------



## ecwinch

I only know that beaches in Aruba are public. Someone else will have to provide the legal insight to where that delinating line is.

However, since the beach (shoreline) is constantly moving, how can the palapas (which are fixed) delineate the break between public and private property? 

Here is one definition of the shoreline:

 "Shoreline" means the upper reaches of the wash of the waves, other than storm and seismic waves, at high tide during the season of the year in which the highest wash of the waves occurs, usually evidenced by the edge of vegetation growth, or the upper limit of debris left by the wash of the waves.

I think the palapas would be defined as minor structures, as noted here (references are from Hawaiian law - and would probably be entirely different from Aruba/Dutch law).

 "Minor structures and activities permitted under rules adopted by the department which do not affect beach processes or artificially fix the shoreline and do not interfere with public access, public views or open space along the shoreline."

And in all the areas I have ever visited, I have never seen someone try to strictly enforce the shoreline. Though I think we might be steering off-topic.

The theme is really that OC was for a time granted a right, that the SC BOD later revoked due to the OC asserting their rights to not share the palapas. I think that it is quid pro quo. The right was "granted" by MVCI to offset the impact of the nearby construction. It was not a permanent grant.

Back to the topic at hand however. Are we not at the 14 day limit for the special meeting being called? Has it been called as required by the by-laws?


----------



## qlaval

luvmypt said:


> From the first row of palapas to the resort is not public beach. That stretch of sand is included as resort property when they're built. Only the beach in front of the first row of palapas to the sea is public. That goes for all resorts. If the beach from the sea to the resort's back door was public, then the resorts couldn't build the palapas to begin with.



I don't think that's the case.
Resorts need a permit to build a number of palapas on the public beach.
One problem that the SC encountered is that the number of palapas allowed was much lower then anticipated at first.
More if you remember Marriott tried in the past to remove a few water sports outlets on the beach and was unable to do so because mainly because they were on public land...


----------



## luvmypt

qlaval said:


> I don't think that's the case.
> Resorts need a permit to build a number of palapas on the public beach.
> One problem that the SC encountered is that the number of palapas allowed was much lower then anticipated at first.
> More if you remember Marriott tried in the past to remove a few water sports outlets on the beach and was unable to do so because mainly because they were on public land...



If, from the front row palapas to the resorts back door is public as you say then why isn't the public allowed to use that portion of the beach? On the hand, why can't I use the beach at the Costa Linda or any other resort if I'm not staying there? Like I said, each resort has a certain amount of beach area that belongs to that resort.

Enough about the beaches. This thread has gotten off course and needs to get back to the task at hand. 

Anybody get their assessement bill yet or does anybody know when they're going to be sent out? Here it is almost the end of April and I've neither heard nor read anything current on the assessements.


----------



## ecwinch

Has the special meeting been called and set? I think we are past the 14 day mark now.


----------



## m61376

qlaval said:


> I don't think that's the case.
> Resorts need a permit to build a number of palapas on the public beach.
> One problem that the SC encountered is that the number of palapas allowed was much lower then anticipated at first.
> More if you remember Marriott tried in the past to remove a few water sports outlets on the beach and was unable to do so because mainly because they were on public land...



That's true. One of the problems that Marriott encountered was that the Arubian government would not allow any palapas at the SC to be erected which blocked the line of sight from any of the villas, which resulted in fewer permits being granted. Marriott had not expected this, since the palapas at the OC were allowed to interfere with the villa views. This was a restriction that was enacted in between the two properties being built.

It is my understanding that anyone can use any beach, but they can't use facilities that are owned by any given resort. In other words, a cruise ship passenger can plop their belongings in front of the best palapas at the OC and block their views, but they can't do so with the OC lounges.

While the OC prohibits SC owners from crossing the imaginary separation line with their lounges, and they can't place the SC towels on the beach in front of the OC, if any SC (or any other owner/visitor/resident) wanted to bring their own chairs, beach blankets and/or beach umbrellas, they could set them up wherever they pleased.

In actuality, that is a real concern with the new condo development. While OC owners have protected their beach rights and unceremoniously throw off SC owners who venture over with their chaises, I don't think there is anything they can do if condo owners come down with chairs, umbrellas, blankets, etc. All that area at the shoreline that is now free, since the OC opted not to have bimini chaises at the beach, is prime area to occupy. If that development ever finishes, I think that is a real concern. People will flock to the least crowded beach in the vicinity and probably the beachfront behind the pier and the OC's are prime candidates.


----------



## qlaval

As of April 24, did anyone received the SA billing yet?


----------



## vincenzi

*SA Billing*



qlaval said:


> As of April 24, did anyone received the SA billing yet?



To date, I have not received the SA billing.


----------



## lovearuba

*Chandeliers for the ocean club lobby*

Does anyone from San Antonio know the artist Gini Garcia.  I heard from friends that just came back from Aruba that the staff were talking about this artist.  They indicated that Steve Richards also from San Antonio and VP of the Ocean club board chose her.  I understand she is going to be commissioned to do new chandeliers.  Not sure why we should be paying for new chandeliers but I am sure they must be beautiful. I found her website and have to say they look pricey.   

I also heard these are estimated to be around $18K dollars and that the artist visited both the ocean club and Orlando to plan for the new lights.  

Here is the website, has anyone else heard about this plan.

Gini Garcia   http://www.garciaartglass.com/index.php


----------



## qlaval

lovearuba said:


> ..._Not sure why we should be paying for new chandeliers but I am sure they must be beautiful. I found her website and have to say they look pricey_...



As for myself I don't mind paying for a very nice lobby.
The "Whoa" factor always count when you're looking to make a good impression.
Most resorts/hotels have a few of these artists items in their respective lobby.
I don't see why the OC wouldn't have them as well.
When renting, using or inviting guests it is always nice to proud of "your" resort.
If they were to purchase expensive imported rugs for people to step on then I would mind but to make the place beautiful then I don't.
I don't want my resort to look like a another regular TS on the island as I expect more for the price I paid...


----------



## lovearuba

*Chandeliers for the ocean club lobby*

Good Point.  I'm not really opposed to new chandeliers, just curious about the timing and the artist.  I was wondering if Marriott uses her for all of their hotels.


----------



## Zac495

lovearuba said:


> Good Point.  I'm not really opposed to new chandeliers, just curious about the timing and the artist.  I was wondering if Marriott uses her for all of their hotels.



Yes - I'm interested, too. Have you heard of this artist, Eric? Aren't you from the same area? THANKS!


----------



## Sunbum

lovearuba said:


> Does anyone from San Antonio know the artist Gini Garcia.  I heard from friends that just came back from Aruba that the staff were talking about this artist.  They indicated that Steve Richards also from San Antonio and VP of the Ocean club board chose her.  I understand she is going to be commissioned to do new chandeliers.  Not sure why we should be paying for new chandeliers but I am sure they must be beautiful. I found her website and have to say they look pricey.
> 
> I also heard these are estimated to be around $18K dollars and that the artist visited both the ocean club and Orlando to plan for the new lights.
> 
> Here is the website, has anyone else heard about this plan.
> 
> Gini Garcia   http://www.garciaartglass.com/index.php



Wow! Are they ever ugly! I think they need to re-think this one. Just MHO.


----------



## ecwinch

Zac495 said:


> Yes - I'm interested, too. Have you heard of this artist, Eric? Aren't you from the same area? THANKS!



I am from San Antonio, but I have not heard of her. 

Of course, I with the economy down, I am not in the market for 18k chandeliers, and her studio is down on the Riverwalk. The Riverwalk is kinda like Liberty Park to us locals.


----------



## ecwinch

It is now 21 days since the special meeting request was sent. What is going on?


----------



## vincenzi

*Assessment Fees Are On Website*

I just checked the Marriott website.  The assessment fees are listed.  For my two weeks, I owe $1,278.50 which is due on June 1, 2009.  Ouch!


----------



## lovearuba

*Special assessments*

Ouch is right.  Its really a shame.  Also, Eric I have not heard about the status of the requested meeting but I'm sure when some worthwhile news is available it will be posted.


----------



## Chemee

Our is there as well.  At least it's not due in April!


----------



## luvmypt

Ours is listed as well and for our two weeks it's $1131.55. It would have been nice if they had stuck to the original June date to begin with.


----------



## d19lane

*Former Ocean Club owner*

I've been following this thread for some time now. As a former owner at the Ocean Club, I must say I'm glad to be out. We traded for the Surf Club. I too was not happy with the increase in MF and the special assessments, but I was satified that the numbers were justified. We were at the Ocean Club last Oct and the property is showing it's age so, I think the 10 year remodel is needed. It is just difficult to accept the extra costs...especially in this economy but, as previously stated, I believe they are justified.

Also, I believe the 48% (or whatever it ended up being) that Marriott paid for the roof is more than fair. If the roof was defective (I don't believe it was) then the association is to blame for not finding it before the property was transfered from Marriott. Buyer beware!

I hope your efforts do no negatively impact the Marriott relationship with the Ocean Club nor the Surf Club. I think the Marriott name itself brings value to the properties.

Good luck.


----------



## modoaruba

*got statement*

Own 4 weeks. Bill is about $2,000.
Great financial timing.
I'm glad the chandelier maker will be able to feed her family. Whew!


----------



## NickGpro

*Recieved my statement.*

I own 1 week and I owe about $640.00, the timing couldn't be better!


----------



## lovearuba

*assessment fees*

How many of you got those bills twice?  Seems like that must cost money to send the bill more than once but maybe they want to make sure we pay it.


----------



## luvmypt

lovearuba said:


> How many of you got those bills twice?  Seems like that must cost money to send the bill more than once but maybe they want to make sure we pay it.



We've received two bills for our one bedroom so far and none for our two bedroom. I guess there's an abundance of money in the MOA fund to waste on these double billing expenditures.   BTW, we've already paid the assessments last week on-line.


----------



## tlwmkw

luvmypt,

This is completely off topic but what does your screen-name refer to?  Is PT your wife/girlfriend?  Or perhaps you love your parrot?  I'm always curious how people come up with their screen-names.  (Mine is just a combination of initials from my family).  Hope I'm not being too nosey.

Thanks, tlwmkw


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Just A Guess.*



tlwmkw said:


> This is completely off topic but what does your screen-name refer to?






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


----------



## luvmypt

tlwmkw said:


> luvmypt,
> 
> This is completely off topic but what does your screen-name refer to?  Is PT your wife/girlfriend?  Or perhaps you love your parrot?  I'm always curious how people come up with their screen-names.  (Mine is just a combination of initials from my family).  Hope I'm not being too nosey.
> 
> Thanks, tlwmkw



AwayWeGo is dead on. My wife had ordered a PT Cruiser when they first came out and it took her 11 months to get it. Luvmypt was suppose to be her hotmail name but she chose another so I kept the name. It's easy to remember.


----------



## Quilter

luvmypt said:


> AwayWeGo is dead on. My wife had ordered a PT Cruiser when they first came out and it took her 11 months to get it. Luvmypt was suppose to be her hotmail name but she chose another so I kept the name. It's easy to remember.



I was sure it had something to do with a physical therapist.


----------



## Chemee

lovearuba said:


> How many of you got those bills twice?  Seems like that must cost money to send the bill more than once but maybe they want to make sure we pay it.



We got two bills also.


----------



## luvmypt

I guess MVCI is seeing double these days because not only did we get two bills but we also got two emails apoligizing for the screw up.


----------



## MYPLANET

*Can we rectify this 'fleecing' of owners?*

I own two weeks at Aruba Ocean Club and was furious at the increase in fees and the assessment.  I was very happy to find this site through facebook, and would entertain any action to rectify this 'fleecing'.


----------



## marksue

*Eamil sent to all on list regarding the meeting*

Dear Aruba Ocean Concerned Owner:   



I want to give you an update on our call for a special meeting.  The current status is that the AOC Board and Marriott are trying to railroad this effort.  



After requesting of the Board and Marriott what steps were necessary in November, and not getting a response, we moved forward with gathering support per our By Laws.  Now after receiving our package requesting the meeting to recall members of the Board with a backup list of those in support Corey Guest, Marriott's General Manager has responded stating that according to an Aruba Law (which is not part of our By Laws) we must have a notarized statement from each owner or a letter from each owner authorizing me to speak for you.

I have spoken with both United States and Aruba attorney's, who acting pro bono, said that they believe since our By Laws do not address the Aruba Law, this is a procedural issue and not one that is nor should be governed by Aruba law.  I am continuing to push for this meeting to occur.  



Several owners have stated that we should consider setting up a Legal defense fund so that we will be ready to take further action if necessary. 



I am not pushing to take legal action, but if the Board and Marriott continue to stonewall this effort, there may be no other choice.  We all became Owners because of our belief in the Marriott name.  We must continue to work to insure that they are responsive. 



The Aruba Ocean Club has been called Marriott's flagship resort.  We know how important it is to the Marriott name - now with the Ritz Carlton deal signed by Mr. Marriott last month in Aruba.  Now is the time to work together and stay reasonable and strong.  

I know this year has been a hardship for many of us, me included.  I would like to see how many of you, Concerned Aruba Ocean Owners would respond, if there was a request to assist in setting up a legal fund.  I have been in touch with legal council in Aruba who will work with me on a contingency basis for now.



Please do not take this as a request for money, as I am not asking for any.  I am just trying to get a feeling, that if needed, would you consider making a donation for legal support.

Our goal is to get a meeting and then let the Owners decide what they would like to do.  


If the owners want to recall the Board then the votes will speak.  We must continue to be outspoken owners until we get our issues satisfactorily addressed.  It is important to have clear actions and a transparent Board. 



For those owners that have not opted out of the call for a special meeting, would you please send me an email confirming your support of me to call a special meeting submitting your name?  This will help to circumvent some of the actions by Marriott and the board.



Thank you for your continued Support.


----------



## marksue

For those that are interested there has been a great deal of email back and forth between myself and the following people regarding the special meeting

Marriott:
arne.sorenson@ - President MI 

Board members:
Allan Cohen,
Frank Knox
Melissa Pericolosi
Steve Richards

MVCI:
Corey Guest
Dirk Schavemaker
Stephen Weisz president MVCI
David Babich - Customer Care VP MVCI

Press:
publisher-nytimes.com; 
THENEWSARUBA-SETARNET.AW; 
NEWS-ARUBATODAY.COM; 
info-ap.org (ASSOC Press); 

Legal:

Names being kept confidential

If anyone is interested in any emails of the above please contact me through a Private Message.  

This is the last message sent:

TO AOC Board, MVCI, MI

This issue has gone on much longer than necessary. The owners have been stonewalled in their rights per the governing documents of the property they purchased. With the refusal of the Ocean Club Board, MVCI and MI to respond to my request for a special meeting, I have had no choice but to retain legal council in Aruba to go along with my legal council in the US.  If the request of the owners are not completed by 5/11/09 you will be hearing from my legal representation.

I am sorry it had to come to this, but the lack of honesty and responses to my requests have caused this action to be taken.  An email to all owners who signed up is going out in the next couple of days and everyone will be aware of the upcoming actions.


----------



## ecwinch

This is a sad development. I think it just raises the bar, but hopefully will not derail your efforts.

While I do not necessarily agree with your goals, I will respect your right to pursue them. If your efforts fail to recognized by your BOD, then it has chilling implications for all MVCI owners everywhere.

I would start with a simple solicitation of notarized statements. While they can argue that it is a requirement when the By-laws appear to be silent on the issue, I do not think they would ignore a sizable presentation of notarized statements. Your position could be - look I have got 100 notarized statements in just 1-2 weeks of you making that the requirement. If I have to get all the statements notarized I will do so, but I then intend to sue you for the cost of doing so, plus attorney fees. Only a fool would continue to defend that issue in the face of an overwhelming presentation of owner response. It is hard to argue you are representing the owners, when you ignore such a significant owner response on a technicality.

Have them make a decision that they will have to defend in a future setting (lawsuit, BOD election, et al), while incurring the least amount of cost on your end.


----------



## marksue

A group of us discussed this idea.  IT is alarge undertaking to get a form out to everyoneand ask them to get it notorized.  We do have a plan in place if that is the route we will take.  There will be volunteers reaching out to all owners.

I have recieved well over 100 emails authorizing me to represent owners in calling a special meeting.  Those emails will be forwarded to the people in my above post.

There is all some legal actions which will be put in place to force the calling of the special meeting.  No one wnted to go this route but Marriott is the one who brought the legal aspects into this situation.

Will let you know how things progress at the appropriate times.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> A group of us discussed this idea.  IT is alarge undertaking to get a form out to everyoneand ask them to get it notorized.  We do have a plan in place if that is the route we will take.  There will be volunteers reaching out to all owners.
> 
> I have recieved well over 100 emails authorizing me to represent owners in calling a special meeting.  Those emails will be forwarded to the people in my above post.
> 
> There is all some legal actions which will be put in place to force the calling of the special meeting.  No one wnted to go this route but Marriott is the one who brought the legal aspects into this situation.
> 
> Will let you know how things progress at the appropriate times.



Yes it is. But only if you have to get all the signatures notarized. 

Take the first step of getting 100 notarized statements. This is a marathon not a foot race. Legal recourse should be your last steps. Exhaust all non-legal steps before going there.


----------



## lovearuba

*My support*

Marksue, 
You know you have my support.  I dont have a lot of money but will donate what I can to support the efforts because its the right thing to do.

I will also send you a notarized document.  If you put one together and email it, I will quickly get it notarized.

What a shame that Marriott continues to ignore this really important issue.


----------



## ecwinch

It is unclear that a notarized document is what they are looking for. It might only require a signature. If that is true, it lowers the bar some.

The standard the AOC BOD has held forth as an example is the standard they use for proxies. They do not require proxies be notarized by a notary public.


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> "... Marriott's General Manager has responded stating that according to an Aruba Law (which is not part of our By Laws) we must have a notarized statement from each owner _or a letter from each owner authorizing me to speak for you_. ...  For those owners that have not opted out of the call for a special meeting, would you please send me an email confirming your support of me to call a special meeting submitting your name?





marksue said:


> For those that are interested there has been a great deal of email back and forth ...





ecwinch said:


> It is unclear that a notarized document is what they are looking for. ...



Marksue, instead of incurring the expense or taking valuable time by asking the concerned owners to provide you with statements which you'll forward, why don't you simply send one email out to your entire list and ask the owners to write directly to the GM?  A simple statement, "I agree with the call for a special meeting, and authorize "Marksue" to speak for me in regards to same," would appear to suffice.

I agree that notarization may not be necessary, but it wouldn't hurt to have it done anyway.  Each owner could assume the responsibility and expense more easily than setting up a legal defense fund, surely.  Especially as any call for a legal defense fund will be looked at by MVCI just the same as every other call to legal action here - MVCI has no choice but to defend against all such calls.

A couple things:  If I was an MOC owner I wouldn't authorize any other owner to speak or act for me in this unless I knew _exactly_, word for word, what was written by the GM.  (I would hope no owner would ever authorize such a thing!)  Your email should include at least the quoted text from the GM, at most a PDF attachment of the actual statement.  Also, you should provide the one complete name and address of the recipient (GM) so that the letters don't go here, there and everywhere.


----------



## marksue

Eric as I told you in the email I sent you the one document you did not see is the letter sent to me by fedex from Corey which says each owner needed to notarize a letter calling for a special meeting.  I appreciate your input and wish what you were saying was accurate.  If all the board wanted was for me to send a notarized letter they have yet to say that.  Unfortunatly there is a real effort by Marriott to not allow the owners to exercise there rights per the governing documents.

I heard that at the stockholders meeting the issue taking place at the Ocean Club was brought up to Mr Marriott and others.  Will be interesting to see if MI steps up at this point.  All along MI has pushed this back down to MVCI, who in my opinion has fueled the fire against this effort.  I do believe MI needs to take some action here.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> Eric as I told you in the email I sent you the one document you did not see is the letter sent to me by fedex from Corey which says each owner needed to notarize a letter calling for a special meeting.  I appreciate your input and wish what you were saying was accurate.  If all the board wanted was for me to send a notarized letter they have yet to say that.  Unfortunatly there is a real effort by Marriott to not allow the owners to exercise there rights per the governing documents.
> 
> I heard that at the stockholders meeting the issue taking place at the Ocean Club was brought up to Mr Marriott and others.  Will be interesting to see if MI steps up at this point.  All along MI has pushed this back down to MVCI, who in my opinion has fueled the fire against this effort.  I do believe MI needs to take some action here.



Mark,

Does that letter specifically state that they want a letter notarized by a notary public from each owner? The provisions they are highlighting in their correspondence to support their position is the standard they use for recognizing proxies. They do not require that proxies be notarized by a notary public. I am referring to Corey Guest's response to you dated Apr.23, 2009. He specifically uses the term "actual signatures" and specifically refers to proxies as his example.

In essence if they use this argument to reject your request, then they may have invalidated every election where quorum or the outcome was determined by the proxies were voted. And it calls into question if the current BOD is properly seated. I am not stating this as fact, but it does open that door.

And it would be detrimental to them use this as the standard they will follow in the future. If you do not have access to a free notary public, it will cost each member around $5-10 to provide the BOD with their proxy. I can only imagine what that would do to their ability to obtain proxies and to meet quorum requirements. I really do not think their legal counsel has thought this through.

I stand corrected if you have already requested clarification and they have responded to that request.

I am only trying to suggest strategies that you can use to have them recognize your legitimate use of process. I can shut up if you like.


----------



## marksue

Eric,

Here is the letter I recieved.  As you can see they are looking for notarized documents from all.  If you think it means something different, please let me know.

I have even asked for the docuemnt they would require and of course never sent it.

LC. Smith Blvd. 99 

Palm Beach, Aruba 
Harriott. Tel.: (297) 586-9000 
Fax: (297) 520-6668 


VACATION CLUB 

E-mail: aruba.reservations@marriotthotels.com ARUBA OCEAN CLUB Website: www.vacationclub.com 
www.marriott.com 

Aruba, April 15,2009 

Via FedEx 

Mr. Mark Silverstein 



re: Calling of special meeting of Members to recall members of the Board of Directors pursuant to Article 6.3 Bylaws 

Dear Mr. Silverstein, 

Reference is made to your letter and attachment dated April 7, 2009 regarding the above mentioned subject which was delivered via FedEx to my office last Thursday evening, April 9, 
2009. The President and Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Cooperatieve Vereniging Marriott Vacation Club International of Aruba have instructed me to inform you as follows: 

In your letter you purport to act on behalf of and to represent 10% of Voting Members, whose names and pertinent weeks appear on the list you have attached to your letter. 

Your representation of 10% of the Voting Members you purport to represent is considered invalid and without any legal effect, unless either one of the two following conditions is satisfied within 48 hours from the date this letter is delivered to you via FedEx: 

1. delivery by you of duly notarized written evidence of your authorization by each individual Voting Member you purport to represent and in the aggregate representing not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes (i.e. power of attorney), or 
2. receipt of confirmation by each such individual Voting Member, representing in the aggregate not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes, of your authorization to represent them as purported in your aforementioned letter. 

I have been instructed to reserve all rights and remedies. 

Sincerely 

Corey Guest 
General Manager 
Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club


----------



## ecwinch

Mark,

Thanks for sharing. Again is my 2 cents, but my response would be:

Corey,

Thank you for your response dated April 15, 2009. Let me start by stating that I think you have misunderstood the the Request for a Special Meeting dated April 7, 2009.

In no form, am I maintaining that I am representing 10% of Voting Members, as you have indicated. I am simply delivering the Request for a Special meeting in accordance with Section XXX of the By-Laws as endorsed by the members indicated on the request. I certainly expect the AOC to take appropriate steps to authenicate the request against the membership list.

To toward that end, I think it is important to note that I requested information on the proper process and procedures in my correspondence of Dec XX, 2008. No response was provided. To now reject this petition of the owners to exercise their rights at outlined in the By-laws is a significant breach of the trust granted to AOC.

Also in regard to your position that notarized evidence is required to move the petition forward, I feel that is important to note that this standard has not been applied to any other elections, grant of proxies, or petitions that have taken place at AOC since it's inception. If the standard is that a duly notarized written signature is required, can you provide me with evidence that this standard has been adhered to in governence of the AOC prior to the receipt of my request. And by "duly notarized written evidence" I am taking that to mean a document notarized by a notary public. If a lesser standard, such as a written signature is all that is required, please advise. Also, please refer to your correspondence of Apr. 25 in that regard.

I am hoping that this communication will clarify any misunderstanding on the nature of petition, and will allow it to move forward. If this is not the case, please provide a complete and though response outlining the defects in the petition. It would be an egregious abuse of power for a second petition to found defective on the basis of a new requirement.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.


... it is rough I know. Some of the logic transitions would have been better...


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> Mark,
> 
> Thanks for sharing. Again is my 2 cents, but my response would be:
> 
> Corey,
> 
> Thank you for your response dated April 15, 2009. Let me start by stating that I think you have misunderstood the the Request for a Special Meeting dated April 7, 2009.
> 
> In no form, am I maintaining that I am representing 10% of Voting Members, as you have indicated. I am simply delivering the Request for a Special meeting in accordance with Section XXX of the By-Laws as endorsed by the members indicated on the request. I certainly expect the AOC to take appropriate steps to authenicate the request against the membership list.
> 
> To toward that end, I think it is important to note that I requested information on the proper process and procedures in my correspondence of Dec XX, 2008. No response was provided. To now reject this petition of the owners to exercise their rights at outlined in the By-laws is a significant breach of the trust granted to AOC.
> 
> Also in regard to your position that notarized evidence is required to move the petition forward, I feel that is important to note that this standard has not been applied to any other elections, grant of proxies, or petitions that have taken place at AOC since it's inception. If the standard is that a duly notarized written signature is required, can you provide me with evidence that this standard has been adhered to in governence of the AOC prior to the receipt of my request. And by "duly notarized written evidence" I am taking that to mean a document notarized by a notary public. If a lesser standard, such as a written signature is all that is required, please advise. Also, please refer to your correspondence of Apr. 25 in that regard.
> 
> I am hoping that this communication will clarify any misunderstanding on the nature of petition, and will allow it to move forward. If this is not the case, please provide a complete and though response outlining the defects in the petition. It would be an egregious abuse of power for a second petition to found defective on the basis of a new requirement.
> 
> I look forward to hearing from you soon.
> 
> 
> ... it is rough I know. Some of the logic transitions would have been better...



Even though I don't agree with this grassroots movement here, I do think that the rights held by all MVCI owners are worth preserving which is why I'm watching this thread so closely.  Eric, I don't think I agree with your suggestion for another letter.  Marriott is obviously looking at this from a legal standpoint, as they should, and it would be best to respond in kind.

First, this is how marksue opened the letter wherein he requested the special meeting:  "_The following request is on behalf of many Concerned Voting Members of the Marriott Vacation Club of Aruba Cooperative Association._"

Considering that marksue's position is unclear from that letter, Corey responded exactly the way I'd expect:

"_*Your representation* of 10% of the Voting Members you purport to represent *is considered invalid and without any legal effect, unless either one of the two following conditions is satisfied* within 48 hours from the date this letter is delivered to you via FedEx: 

1. *delivery by you of duly notarized written evidence of* your authorization by each individual Voting Member you purport to represent and in the aggregate representing not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes (i.e. *power of attorney*), or 
2. *receipt of confirmation by each such individual* Voting Member, representing in the aggregate not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes, *of your authorization to represent them* as purported in your aforementioned letter._"

Think about it, would any of us want MVCI (or any other entity!) to accept our names on a list submitted by someone else, as a basis for a legal action?  What Corey asks for is to protect both MVCI and the owners!  He wants clarification and proof.  Either marksue is holding Power of Attorney for the owners whose names were on the list he submitted, or he has compiled the list through communication with the owners while assuming no legal authority for the names on it.  Marriott wants either the legal notarized documentation of the Power of Attorney, or they want the owners to sign individual statements verifying their agreement with marksue.

It doesn't surprise me at all, this turn of events.  If I was a part of this and seriously believed that the cause was worthwhile and that a positive resolution could be reached by way of this special meeting to oust three members of the BOD, I'd be working toward getting legal representation so that the necessary actions could be taken properly.  Marriott and/or MVCI is too smart to dicker around with nonsense.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> THe request for the special meeting to recall the current board has been delivered and received.
> 
> The following was sent to Corey at the Ocean Club:
> 
> Aruba Ocean Club Concerned Owners
> 
> 
> April 7, 2009
> 
> Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club
> c/o Corey Guest – General Manager
> Board of Directors
> 101 L.G. Smith Blvd
> Palm Beach, Aruba
> 
> Dear Aruba Ocean Club Board of Directors:
> 
> The following request is on behalf of many Concerned Voting Members of the Marriott Vacation Club of Aruba Cooperative Association. We the owners representing over 10% of the use periods owned, hereby request a duly convened special meeting of Members, pursuant to Article VI section 6.3 Removal of the Directors:  The purpose of the meeting is to recall the following members of the Board of Directors.
> 
> President: Frank Knox
> Vice President: Steve Richards
> Treasurer: Melissa Pericolosi
> 
> Article VI section 6.3 states that:
> 
> The calling of a special meeting of Members to recall members of the Board of Directors may be called by Voting Members representing not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes.  Notice of such meeting shall be given fourteen (14) days prior to such meeting and shall state the purpose of the meeting...
> 
> With notice of the Special Meeting a ballot and proxy must be prepared to have Members vote on the removal of the Officers of the Association.  As stated a Director can be removed "with or without cause".
> 
> Please forward all documents prepared for the calling of the Special Meeting and we will prepare a statement to all Members for the requested action, to be included in the mailing per the By Laws.
> 
> The separate attached list represents over 10% of the voting members whose local address is The Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club, 101 L.G. Smith Blvd, Palm Beach, Aruba, and contains owners name and number of use periods owned.
> 
> 
> Thank you:



This is the original request right?

Here is what they are saying in their rejection:

 "Your representation of 10% of the Voting Members you purport to represent"

 Unless "Concerned Voting Members" is some legal entity that MarkSue formed to assign proxies to, I do not see anything in this document where MarkSue suggested that he represents, had the proxy, or had the POA to vote those owners interests in an election. He is simply providing the elected BOD with a list of members that are calling for a special meeting as per the by-laws. The topic of the meeting will be the potential removal of the BOD. It will be discussed and voted upon.

He needs to give them a list of 10% of the members that are requesting the meeting, and ask they verify the membership and call the meeting. Send them a second copy of the list with a reworded cover letter. 

They should verify the names and intervals match their membership list. If it does not then - reject the request on the basis of that and the fact that other defects existed. But list those defects. Do not ignore the valid request of a sizable number of your owners.  There concerns need to be addressed.

The burden they are placing on the owners is excessive. This path will only be expensive for both parties.

Can someone share a copy of the By-Laws with me.

Thanks


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> This is the original request right?
> 
> Here is what they are saying in their rejection:
> 
> "Your representation of 10% of the Voting Members you purport to represent"
> 
> Unless "Concerned Voting Members" is some legal entity that MarkSue formed to assign proxies to, I do not see anything in this document where MarkSue suggested that he represents, had the proxy, or had the POA to vote those owners interests in an election. He is simply providing the elected BOD with a list of members that are calling for a special meeting as per the by-laws. The topic of the meeting will be the potential removal of the BOD. It will be discussed and voted upon.
> 
> He needs to give them a list of 10% of the members that are requesting the meeting, and ask they verify the membership and call the meeting. Send them a second copy of the list with a reworded cover letter.
> 
> They should verify the names and intervals match their membership list. If it does not then - reject the request on the basis of that and the fact that other defects existed. But list those defects. Do not ignore the valid request of a sizable number of your owners.  There concerns need to be addressed.
> 
> The burden they are placing on the owners is excessive. This path will only be expensive for both parties.
> 
> Can someone share a copy of the By-Laws with me.
> 
> Thanks



It would help, wouldn't it, if the entire procedure is spelled out in the By-Laws?  I'd like to see them, too.  But it doesn't surprise me that Marriott/MVCI is sticking to the letter of the law here.  No, Marksue's letter isn't the actual call to oust the BOD members, but it is still a legal action involving all of the owners whose names are on his list.

Without knowledge of a Power of Attorney held by Marksue or signatures from the owners, how could Marriott/MVCI know that the owners on that list have complete knowledge of and agree with exactly what Marksue is requesting and/or the ramifications of the action to oust BOD members?  Marriott/MVCI is asking for verification, and the burden for that rests on the owners, doesn't it?  The company isn't going to expend any resources on matching Marksue's list to their ownership records (or do anything else) until they know that they and each owner are protected.

Look at it this way.  It's been assumed here that Marriott is reading this thread, hasn't it?  It's been insinuated here that Marksue has access to the ownership list by way of a board member, which means that he could theoretically submit any owners' names.  There's been at least one post saying that an owner expects Marksue's actions to result in lower maintenence fees (despite the fact that Marksue didn't promise such a thing.)  What would happen if the call for a special meeting went forward without the verification that's being asked for by Marriott?  The outcome of that meeting can only be the three members ousted, right?  No change in fees, at all, can be expected here.  But if that one member doesn't understand that until after the special meeting is held, who do you think s/he will contact ranting and raving?  I'm guessing it won't be Marksue, and Marriott/MVCI will have a whole lot of explaining to do.  They'd be foolish to proceed with the action without first protecting their interests with verification of some sort from the owners on that list.

It appears to me that Corey asked for the notarized Power of Attorney, if one exists, or individual signed statements from each of those owners who agree with Marksue's call for a special meeting.  I don't think it places an undue burden on the owners to provide a written statement.  As I said before, I would hope that no owner would give unilateral authority to any other without clearly specifying the limits of that authority.  That boggles my mind much more than Corey's response to Marksue.


----------



## marksue

First of all i do not have access to the owners list.  What I do have are owners that joined the group of concerned owners and agreed to calling a special meeting of the board for the purpose of calling a special meeting.  THe names of all owners who agreed to the meeting was supplied with the letter I sent to BOD.

We have emails or signed documents from all owners who signed up.  Also prior to sending to Marriott an email was sent to every owner offering them the opportunity to opt out of the call for a special meeting.  

Everything required has been followed per the governing documents.  The list of owners have been submitted per the bylaws.


----------



## tlwmkw

Marksue,

It appears that you need to send copies of the letters authorizing you to represent the owners at the meeting.  If they need to be notarized then you should check with your bank or local hospital- they always have notaries on staff who will usually notarize a document with no charge (or very minimal charge).  If you wish to pursue this then you will have to jump through whatever legal hoops are required.  I have to say that it does make sense that Marriott requires solid proof that you do represent who you say you represent- otherwise you could just submit a list of owners and claim to be representing them.  Marriott is actually protecting the actual owners by doing this.  They could get sued by owners who feel that Marriott is bowing to outside interests and not following the letter of the law- I can see why they are requiring this all be done correctly.

Again- have you thought what you are going to do beyond installing a new board?  I know you want more transparency but that does appear to be happening since this all began.  They are telling you why the costs have increased and explained everything in a reasonable way and it doesn't seem that anyone has suggested ways to decrease the costs. 

By doing all this you may increase expenses because of the all the extra work that the Ocean Club will have to do to accomodate the special meeting etc (they won't do it for free and the expense will be passed to the owners).


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> First of all i do not have access to the owners list.



I'm not saying that you do.  But it's been insinuated here that you do, and it's been assumed here that Marriott/MVCI has been reading this thread.  How would they know what you do and don't have?   



marksue said:


> What I do have are owners that joined the group of concerned owners and agreed to calling a special meeting of the board for the purpose of calling a special meeting.  THe names of all owners who agreed to the meeting was supplied with the letter I sent to BOD.



What proof did you offer with your letter that the owners whose names are on that list have actually called for the special meeting?



marksue said:


> We have emails or signed documents from all owners who signed up.  Also prior to sending to Marriott an email was sent to every owner offering them the opportunity to opt out of the call for a special meeting.



How would Marriott/MVCI know this?  



marksue said:


> Everything required has been followed per the governing documents.  The list of owners have been submitted per the bylaws.



Do the bylaws stipulate that a list of owners names is sufficient for submission?  Most petitions require an actual signature to be considered legitimate.

All I'm saying is that Marriott's/MVCI's first line of defense here can not be unexpected.  Before they expend any resources at all, they want verification from the owners that they are aware their names have been submitted to be counted among the 10% requirement, and that each agrees with the call for a special meeting.  That's not an unreasonable request.


----------



## SueDonJ

tlwmkw said:


> Marksue,
> 
> It appears that you need to send copies of the letters *authorizing you to represent the owners at the meeting*.  If they need to be notarized then you should check with your bank or local hospital- they always have notaries on staff who will usually notarize a document with no charge (or very minimal charge).  If you wish to pursue this then you will have to jump through whatever legal hoops are required.  I have to say that it does make sense that Marriott requires solid proof that you do represent who you say you represent- otherwise you could just submit a list of owners and claim to be representing them.  Marriott is actually protecting the actual owners by doing this.  They could get sued by owners who feel that Marriott is bowing to outside interests and not following the letter of the law- I can see why they are requiring this all be done correctly.



I agree with all of this EXCEPT the part that's bolded.  The owners whose names are on Marksue's list have not given him authorization to represent the owners at the special meeting.  What they have done is join him in the call for a special meeting.  In his letter, though, he says that he is writing "_on behalf of_" those owners, and it makes sense that Marriott/MVCI's first line of defense is to verify Marksue's capacity in their behalf. 



tlwmkw said:


> Again- have you thought what you are going to do beyond installing a new board?  I know you want more transparency but that does appear to be happening since this all began.  They are telling you why the costs have increased and explained everything in a reasonable way and it doesn't seem that anyone has suggested ways to decrease the costs.
> 
> By doing all this you may increase expenses because of the all the extra work that the Ocean Club will have to do to accomodate the special meeting etc (they won't do it for free and the expense will be passed to the owners).



I'd like to see the answers here, too, but others have asked the same questions with no reply.


----------



## Retired to Travel

SueDonJ said:


> All I'm saying is that Marriott's/MVCI's first line of defense here can not be unexpected.  Before they expend any resources at all, they want verification from the owners that they are aware their names have been submitted to be counted among the 10% requirement, and that each agrees with the call for a special meeting.  That's not an unreasonable request.



You have said it perfectly.  We agree.  Based on our experience with the beach solicitors who collected names, I suspect that the 10% will shrink to 1-2% when these individuals are *specifically* asked "Do you want to oust the BOD?" or "Do you want a special meeting?" or "Do you want MarkSue to represent you?"  No mention of these steps was made by the owner who asked for our name, address, and ownership info.


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> Without knowledge of a Power of Attorney held by Marksue or signatures from the owners, how could Marriott/MVCI know that the owners on that list have complete knowledge of and agree with exactly what Marksue is requesting and/or the ramifications of the action to oust BOD members?  Marriott/MVCI is asking for verification, and the burden for that rests on the owners, doesn't it?  The company isn't going to expend any resources on matching Marksue's list to their ownership records (or do anything else) until they know that they and each owner are protected.



Sue,

In general I agree with most of what you have said, except for:

1) It is not MVCI's responsibility to assure that each member on the list has complete knowlege and understanding of the ramifications of the action. There is no meaningful test they could make to meet that standard.

2) They are holding this petition to a higher standard then they use in the governance of the MOC. 

When lawyers are involved, this is the first page in the playbook. They establish a position that is most beneficial to their clients interest. That is all they have done by saying that notarized statements are required. That is their opening position and is unreasonable, while the standard of signatures is reasonable. 

Think of any electoral or political process you can. How many of them require a notarized signature?

You just keep chipping away until they agree to a reasonable standard. You do so by countering with a position that is most beneficial to your cause.


----------



## ecwinch

Retired to Travel said:


> You have said it perfectly.  We agree.  Based on our experience with the beach solicitors who collected names, I suspect that the 10% will shrink to 1-2% when these individuals are *specifically* asked "Do you want to oust the BOD?" or "Do you want a special meeting?" or "Do you want MarkSue to represent you?" * No mention of these steps was made by the owner who asked for our name, address, and ownership info.*



On one level, I hope this is not the case, as your comment validates a concern the critics of this crusade have had. One would hope this is the exception rather than the rule.

It clearly would be a setback if a sizable portion of the owners whose names were provided to MVCI, did NOT agree to request the special meeting. However, I think we can agree that Mark has no way of knowing what was conveyed to each owner to elicit their support.

But, one has to wonder if it is karma that this information comes out in the 1000th post?


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> Sue,
> 
> In general I agree with most of what you have said, except for:
> 
> 1) It is not MVCI's responsibility to assure that each member on the list has complete knowlege and understanding of the ramifications of the action. There is no meaningful test they could make to meet that standard.



You're right, of course.  I was trying to say that the owners need to state their agreement with with the call for a special meeting to attempt to oust three members of the BOD, and nothing more.



ecwinch said:


> 2) They are holding this petition to a higher standard then they use in the governance of the MOC.
> 
> When lawyers are involved, this is the first page in the playbook. They establish a position that is most beneficial to their clients interest. That is all they have done by saying that notarized statements are required. That is their opening position and is unreasonable, while the standard of signatures is reasonable.
> 
> Think of any electoral or political process you can. How many of them require a notarized signature?



I don't see that Corey's letter requested notarized signatures from the individual owners.  A notarized Power of Attorney, yes, if one exists, because a PoA is invalid without notarization.  But Corey's letter requested "_either one of the two following_," and no mention of notarization is made for the individual owners' statements:

"_1. delivery by you of duly *notarized* written evidence of your authorization by each individual Voting Member you purport to represent and in the aggregate representing not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes (i.e. power of attorney), or 
2. receipt of confirmation by each such individual Voting Member, representing in the aggregate not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes, of your authorization to represent them as purported in your aforementioned letter_"



ecwinch said:


> You just keep chipping away until they agree to a reasonable standard. You do so by countering with a position that is most beneficial to your cause.



Of course.  Right now it's most beneficial to the owners' cause to comply with Marriott's/MVCI's not-unreasonable demand.


----------



## SueDonJ

Retired to Travel said:


> You have said it perfectly.  We agree.  Based on our experience with the beach solicitors who collected names, I suspect that the 10% will shrink to 1-2% when these individuals are *specifically* asked "Do you want to oust the BOD?" or "Do you want a special meeting?" or "Do you want MarkSue to represent you?"  No mention of these steps was made by the owner who asked for our name, address, and ownership info.



Wow.  Beach solicitors?  I don't know why it shocks me, but it does.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> On one level, I hope this is not the case, as your comment validates a concern the critics of this crusade have had. One would hope this is the exception rather than the rule.
> 
> It clearly would be a setback if a sizable portion of the owners whose names were provided to MVCI, did NOT agree to request the special meeting. However, I think we can agree that Mark has no way of knowing what was conveyed to each owner to elicit their support.
> 
> But, one has to wonder if it is karma that this information comes out in the 1000th post?



This is spot on - Marksue has no way of knowing what each and every owner whose name is on his list is expecting for an outcome here.  I appreciate the time and effort that he's put into his cause, but I wonder if he's assuming a great deal of risk by acting on behalf of the group.  I sure wouldn't do it.


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> You're right, of course.  I was trying to say that the owners need to state their agreement with with the call for a special meeting to attempt to oust three members of the BOD, and nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see that Corey's letter requested notarized signatures from the individual owners.  A notarized Power of Attorney, yes, if one exists, because a PoA is invalid without notarization.  But Corey's letter requested "_either one of the two following_," and no mention of notarization is made for the individual owners' statements:
> 
> "_1. delivery by you of duly *notarized* written evidence of your authorization by each individual Voting Member you purport to represent and in the aggregate representing not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes (i.e. power of attorney), or
> 2. receipt of confirmation by each such individual Voting Member, representing in the aggregate not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes, of your authorization to represent them as purported in your aforementioned letter_"
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  Right now it's most beneficial to the owners' cause to comply with Marriott's/MVCI's not-unreasonable demand.



I think we agree. As I would just reword the letter and resubmit. The cost is relatively low to do so. That was the intent of my first suggestion.

In regards to the beach-solicitors, I think/hope this means a well-intentioned owner canvasing the beach area at the hotel rather than something more odorous.


----------



## Retired to Travel

Sorry I used the word "solicitor."  It was indeed a well-intentioned owner.

On our very first day at Ocean Club, before we had even unfolded a beach towel, we were approached by a gentleman (whom we afterward dubbed "Mr. Clipboard" as we watched him cover the beach.)  He was friendly and polite, and stated only that he was collecting ownership information so that owners could "stay in touch."  He showed us a form which listed many of the complaints which have been aired here.  We politely declined, citing privacy concerns and stating that we did not agree with the entire list.  Afterward we spoke with another couple who had given him their info; they were astonished when we told them that, based on this TUG thread, we suspected the underlying agenda might perhaps include an effort to recall BOD members.

Perhaps our experience is not typical, but it makes us wonder, and that is why we think the request for individually signed statements is quite reasonable.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> I think we agree. As I would just reword the letter and resubmit. The cost is relatively low to do so. That was the intent of my first suggestion.



I'm still not understanding, though, Eric, how a re-worded letter from Marksue to Corey would satisfy one of the two requirements put forth.  It couldn't include either a POA (because there isn't one) or the necessary individual signatures/statements from every owner on the list.  How does it help the cause to ignore the requirement?



ecwinch said:


> In regards to the beach-solicitors, I think/hope this means a well-intentioned owner canvasing the beach area at the hotel rather than something more odorous.



I think so too, and see that *Retired to Travel* does as well.  If we can agree on anything, it's that this crusade is obviously fueled by good intentions.


----------



## ecwinch

It is a procedural issue. They are rejecting it because he claims to represent the owners, and they cannot verify that fact. Drop any and all statements to that effect.

Present it as list of members requesting a special meeting. Make them come back with the specific requirements that the special meeting request has to be in.

They are only providing him with the requirements if he wants to move forward with his claim to represent the owners. They have not outlined the requirements for requesting a Special Meeting to be called. Change the question and you may get a different answer. 

The core question being - what are the requirements for a calling a special meeting? Mark has previously indicated that the by-laws are silent on the issue.

So far I think here is what has happened:

- Mark: Hi, I represent 1000 owners and want to call a special meeting
- BOD: Wait. Prove to us you represent those owners

vs

- Mark: Hi, here is a petition from 1000 owners requesting a special meeting
- BOD: Nice try, we need the following - owner name, address, member number, interval week and signature. You are missing member number and signature.

You might end up in the same place - maybe not. The cost to find it out is minimal.

They have not even commented on any other defects in the request that might exist. They just as easily could reject the (next) signed petition on some previously undisclosed requirement (whoops - need the member number). Get all the requirements out up front either by them outlining the requirement or by their response to your actions. Mark has indicated they have not provide the information when requested, so this is another way of getting that information. I would admit it is not the best one...


----------



## SueDonJ

Ah, okay, I get what you're saying.  But this kind of back-and-forth stuff could go on for quite a long time!  Wouldn't you run the risk of the owners losing interest and/or their willingness to cooperate with future requirements if the action is to go forward indefinitely?

Consider, the catalyst for the action is past and the owners have presumably already agreed to Marriott's terms by paying their bills.  The due date for the increased maintenance fees has come and gone; the due date for the special assessment fee hasn't, but those bills are out and there is no way that this action will be resolved before that due date.

Like I said, if I was involved in this action my opinion would be that it's past time to retain an attorney who is qualified to interpret the bylaws as well as Marriott's/MVCI's communications.  Long past.


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> Ah, okay, I get what you're saying.  But this kind of back-and-forth stuff could go on for quite a long time!  Wouldn't you run the risk of the owners losing interest and/or their willingness to cooperate with future requirements if the action is to go forward indefinitely?
> 
> *Consider, the catalyst for the action is past and the owners have presumably already agreed to Marriott's terms by paying their bills.  The due date for the increased maintenance fees has come and gone*; the due date for the special assessment fee hasn't, but those bills are out and there is no way that this action will be resolved before that due date.
> 
> Like I said, if I was involved in this action my opinion would be that it's past time to retain an attorney who is qualified to interpret the bylaws as well as Marriott's/MVCI's communications.  Long past.



Well that part was over before it was started. In my mind, it now is about getting the BOD to recognize the owners right to due process and the requirements to exercise that right. 

To some degree, if an extremely bored individual would go back and read all the posts in this thread, what you are outlining is what most of us "critics" have been trying to accomplish since the beginning. To get him to frame his desire for change in a way that is productive. You only get so many shots at the bear, aim wisely.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> ... if an extremely bored individual would go back and read all the posts in this thread ...



Ugh.  I don't know if it should be admitted, what it says about me, but I've done exactly that at least four times here.    Each time it was because a new post made me stop and think, "what am I missing here that this doesn't make any sense?"


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> Ugh.  I don't know if it should be admitted, what it says about me, but I've done exactly that at least four times here.    Each time it was because a new post made me stop and think, "what am I missing here that this doesn't make any sense?"



It was only 10 pages or so when I joined in. I feel your pain. Your therapist or clergy will have to tell what it says about you...

I think this is now the thread with most posts and views in the history of the new BBS format.

[Edit: Correction - posts, but not views. Not yet at least. ]


----------



## m61376

I, too, have read all the posts , but thankfully only once. One of the things in the last several posts which I find confusing and I suspect needs to be clarified is the terms of the petition which owners were signing (if it was, in fact, a petition at all, since the solicitations on the beach seem questionable at best). Are they authorizing Mark to act as an agent on their behalf or are they requesting a special meeting and retaining all voting rights?

My impression was that people wanted a special meeting and when they had more details of any agenda would then choose how they individually wanted to proceed. Even if you were to overcome the logistics of obtaining even signed statements from each individual owner, you need first to clarify what they would be agreeing to. If, in fact, owners are going to be asked to sign a proxy statement authorizing Mark to act on their behalf, I think it will be very hard to obtain the needed signatures. Not to be disparaging, but most of us are strangers who converse on an Internet board to learn more about a common interest, but most of us are still strangers. It is probably a good thing I own at the SC and not at the OC, because I for one would have a very hard time authorizing a stranger to vote on my behalf; I would also be reticent to furnish personal identifiers such as Marriott owner's information, etc. to someone I didn't know and that was in no way affiliated with the company. I think that's a big hurdle to overcome.


----------



## taffy19

SueDonJ said:


> Ugh. I don't know if it should be admitted, what it says about me, but I've done exactly that at least four times here.  Each time it was because a new post made me stop and think, "what am I missing here that this doesn't make any sense?"


I am keeping track of this thread too and have to read some of it over again as it is so difficult to follow. The thread is important because it may affect other Marriott timeshare resorts too one day, depending on the outcome here.

It is really sad what happened here with such a big increase in fees to the owners in one single year. All maintenance fees are rising faster than the inflation rate and I wonder why?

No wonder that this thread is so very long because everyone is concerned. It must be the longest thread ever.


----------



## dioxide45

This seems much like a recall vote for a mayor or a governor. A list of names of people wanting the recall vote mean nothing. Those petitions need signatures, not necessarily authorizing one to speak on behalf of them but just showing that they are on the petition. If no signatures exist then there is no proof that those people signed up for the call of a special meeting.


----------



## SueDonJ

m61376 said:


> I, too, have read all the posts , but thankfully only once. One of the things in the last several posts which I find confusing and I suspect needs to be clarified is the terms of the petition which owners were signing (if it was, in fact, a petition at all, since the solicitations on the beach seem questionable at best). Are they authorizing Mark to act as an agent on their behalf or are they requesting a special meeting and retaining all voting rights?
> 
> My impression was that people wanted a special meeting and when they had more details of any agenda would then choose how they individually wanted to proceed. Even if you were to overcome the logistics of obtaining even signed statements from each individual owner, you need first to clarify what they would be agreeing to. If, in fact, owners are going to be asked to sign a proxy statement authorizing Mark to act on their behalf, I think it will be very hard to obtain the needed signatures. Not to be disparaging, but most of us are strangers who converse on an Internet board to learn more about a common interest, but most of us are still strangers. It is probably a good thing I own at the SC and not at the OC, because I for one would have a very hard time authorizing a stranger to vote on my behalf; I would also be reticent to furnish personal identifiers such as Marriott owner's information, etc. to someone I didn't know and that was in no way affiliated with the company. I think that's a big hurdle to overcome.



That's my impression, too, that people gave their names expressly to be included in the 10% requirement for the request for a special meeting, with no authorization to give up their voting rights in that meeting to Marksue.  To be fair, Marksue didn't make any claims to those authorizations or rights.  The problem came when Marksue submitted his letter with the list of names and stated that he was acting "on behalf of" the owners whose names were on that list.  I think Corey's response that Marriott didn't recognize a legal basis for him to act on anyone's behalf in any way was reasonable and should have been expected.

Maybe if Marksue's letter had included an actual petition with accompanying owners' signatures stating that a special meeting was being requested pursuant to Article BlahBlahBlah of the bylaws BlahBlahBlah, rather than just a list of names and his "on behalf of" wording in the cover letter, this one hurdle could have been avoided.  Maybe.

Nevermind the risks involved in an owner signing a proxy statement to give another owner voting rights, I wouldn't even have authorized Marksue to put my name on his list to call for the special meeting.  My response would have been exactly the same as Retired to Travel's - no way, no how.  It makes no sense to me that Marksue or the owners would assume the risks involved.


----------



## taffy19

Also, SA are bad planning on behalf of the resort management (HOA) unless an Act of God occurred like a hurricane, fire, flood or something like that. They should have enough reserves in the account! 

Management should have noticed a long time ago that the roof was bad. If they were patching it up for a few years, then they should have taken out more for reserves over a few years and not all of the sudden in two big payments. Why didn't they?


----------



## lovearuba

*an owners perspective*

Since there is a lot of speculation of what owners agreed to and what they did not.  We knew exactly what we were signing up for.  We are signing up to change the board to ensure we have transparency.  That is all.  We want to know what is happening and not being kept in the dark.  There are no expectations that something is guaranteed to change the maintenace fees.  We just want to have people on the board who are not afraid to share with the owners what is going on.  No more secrecy.


----------



## tlwmkw

lovearuba,

The very first post that was made by Marksue called for a class action suit against Marriott- there was no mention of transparency, it was all about the money.  The loss of transparency occurred because Marriott shut down communication when they were threatened with a lawsuit.  Thankfully the class action suit threat has been dropped but the cat was already out of the bag once it was mentioned and you cannot now get that cat back into the bag.

Many of us have been asking what you are trying to achieve with all of this- the board has now explained the cost increases in a way that seems to make a lot of sense, and in fact they have explained that the amounts may be less than anticipated because of the lower than expected costs.  So now you do have the transparency that you are asking for.  Goal achieved.  

What is your aim in overthrowing the board?  No one has really said.  You now have transparency and the board is explaining where the money is going and why the costs have risen- what else are you trying to achieve?  Your board has actually managed to get 48% of the cost of the roof to be covered by Marriott even though the roof was 10+ years old.  I would think you should be thanking the board for getting that much out of Marriott.  The only thing left would be to defer or cancel the refurbishment but I know from past experience that many owners would be furious if the resort was not maintained to a high standard.  The bottom line now is to focus on what your goals are and if they can be reached by overthrowing your board.  Of course Marriott wants proof that the owners really want the meeting and they will demand that you follow all procedure to a t, but no one expects any less.  Regardless of that you need to have an action plan so that if you do get the meeting and then unseat the board you can actually do something productive in the future.  I can't imagine that your only goal is to get rid of the current board and then nothing more- what will you have achieved?  

I'm not trying to throw cold water on all this but I'm trying to be realistic about these issues and hate to see all this work on your part with really no gain whatsoever.

tlwmkw


----------



## ilene13

*From an owner*

I find it very interesting that many people who are helping to make this thread 41 pages in length DO NOT OWN at the Ocean Club.  Why are you so interested in spending so much time giving your opinions when you have nothing to do with the situation!!


----------



## SueDonJ

ilene13 said:


> I find it very interesting that many people who are helping to make this thread 41 pages in length DO NOT OWN at the Ocean Club.  Why are you so interested in spending so much time giving your opinions when you have nothing to do with the situation!!



Because Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club is not the only resort in the MVCI collection, which means that some of the issues that these owners face are not obviously exclusive to the Aruba Ocean Club.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Various Reasons.*




ilene13 said:


> Why are you so interested in spending so much time giving your opinions when you have nothing to do with the situation!


So we can go & do likewise -- or go & do the opposite, as the case may be. 

So we can pick up on some of what's going on at other people's timeshares. 

So we can commiserate. 

So we can offer advice & insights from an outsider's perspective. 

Because we TUG-BBS people like to stick together. 

Etc. 

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


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Since there is a lot of speculation of what owners agreed to and what they did not.  We knew exactly what we were signing up for.  We are signing up to change the board to ensure we have transparency.  That is all.  We want to know what is happening and not being kept in the dark.  There are no expectations that something is guaranteed to change the maintenace fees.  We just want to have people on the board who are not afraid to share with the owners what is going on.  No more secrecy.



I do not think you are empowered to speak for everyone who provided owner information.


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> Because Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club is not the only resort in the MVCI collection, which means that some of the issues that these owners face are not obviously exclusive to the Aruba Ocean Club.



Well said.


----------



## ecwinch

ilene13 said:


> I find it very interesting that many people who are helping to make this thread 41 pages in length DO NOT OWN at the Ocean Club.  Why are you so interested in spending so much time giving your opinions when you have nothing to do with the situation!!



Why does our opinion matter less?


----------



## m61376

SueDonJ said:


> Because Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club is not the only resort in the MVCI collection, which means that some of the issues that these owners face are not obviously exclusive to the Aruba Ocean Club.



And how the situation is dealt with sets a precedent. Marriott has a lot at stake here too, which is why they are being very exacting in how they deal with the situation.

I also think how Marriott deals with not only content but disgruntled owners reflects on MVCI in general.

ilene13- Sometimes the best ideas come from an outside perspective. When you're heavily vested in something it can be hard to look at it from someone else's vantage point. I would think that OC owners would appreciate suggestions from others who are familiar with Marriott or timeshares in general and might offer their experience or a clearer evaluation of the situation. While I commend Mark's efforts, I think Marriott would have been more receptive if calmer heads had prevailed. But since I don't own at the OC feel free to dismiss my opinion.


----------



## lovearuba

tlwmkw said:


> lovearuba,
> 
> Many of us have been asking what you are trying to achieve with all of this- the board has now explained the cost increases in a way that seems to make a lot of sense, and in fact they have explained that the amounts may be less than anticipated because of the lower than expected costs.  So now you do have the transparency that you are asking for.  Goal achieved.
> 
> 
> tlwmkw



We do not see it this way, there are a lot of things happening that are not shared here that continue to demonstrate that important information is being kept from the owners.  The whole refusal of Marriott to recognize the owners request for a special meeting is disheartening.  They should be interested in discussing these concerns with owners and if at the end of that process nothing changes then at least we felt we were heard.  If not,then the efforts will continue.

For those of you who wonder why non-Marriott ocean club owners have so much to say about the cause, I for one appreciate the input.  I had difficulty with it initially because some of the comments appeared just rude but they are actually very helpful.  Lots of opinions have changed since this thread started, as more information is made available good things can happen.


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> First of all i do not have access to the owners list.  What I do have are owners that joined the group of concerned owners and agreed to calling a special meeting of the board for the purpose of calling a special meeting.  THe names of all owners who agreed to the meeting was supplied with the letter I sent to BOD.
> 
> We have emails or signed documents from all owners who signed up.  Also prior to sending to Marriott an email was sent to every owner offering them the opportunity to opt out of the call for a special meeting.
> 
> Everything required has been followed per the governing documents.  The list of owners have been submitted per the bylaws.


As I noted earlier in the thread, you should have access to the owners, it's just you'll likely need to pay the cost of the mailings as they do not have the right to divulge those owners info to you without their permission.  

While you see it as stonewalling (and it may or may not be), the requirements they're giving you are reasonable.  Either a direct contact from the member authorizing you or a you to have a notarized representation in hand.  Otherwise they really don't know you represent who you say you do.  Just having enough info to document those members is not enough.  It's on you to prove those are legitimate owners and that they authorize you OR support your request.  If the requirement is more than would be required for a proxy vote, you can likely whittle it down to that level which is a higher bar than you have reached so far.  That assumes of course that there are not higher requirements for certain actions within the Bylaws and similar documents.  They could all contact directly requesting the recall as you have and this would negate the need for such documentation.  I'd suggest you also scrutinize the by laws and other documents as for the requirement for proxy voting so that when time comes to vote, you can have as many votes as possible that you control.  In most instances for a sold out resort, 10% of the members as a block should be enough to control the decision on most if not all matters.  



ilene13 said:


> I find it very interesting that many people who are helping to make this thread 41 pages in length DO NOT OWN at the Ocean Club.  Why are you so interested in spending so much time giving your opinions when you have nothing to do with the situation!!


I can't speak for others but for me, two reasons.  One is that it is a DISCUSSION board, the other and main one is that all Marriott owners, if not all timeshare owners, have some stake in this game.  And that's true on both sides of the isle.


----------



## tlwmkw

ilene13,

All MVCI owners should have an interest in what is going on at the Ocean Club- as others have said this impacts on all MVCI properties and how MVCI handles them.  I do think that Marksue and lovearuba have been given some excellent advice by the Tug members who have posted here and hopefully that has helped them to focus their goals.  I think everyone on Tug is hoping that this situation resolves in a way that pleases both owners and management.

tlwmkw


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> ... The whole refusal of Marriott to recognize the owners request for a special meeting is disheartening.  They should be interested in discussing these concerns with owners and if at the end of that process nothing changes then at least we felt we were heard. ...



There is no doubt that the Ocean Club owners have reason to be upset with actions taken by their BOD and/or Marriott/MVCI.  It's apparent to those on the outside looking in that previous BOD's did not respond to, budget for, or take action to alleviate the problems with the building.  That (as well as the unforeseen infrastructure/labor cost increases on the island) is why the current BOD has had to take the difficult action of burdening owners with an operating budget that resulted in this year's increased maintenance fees and special assessment fees.

That's only one example of things gone wrong for the owners.  Alan's removal as president, the addition of personnel to the Ocean Club, the BOD's switch from individual email addresses to one single address - these and others are more issues that can be looked at differently by non-owners without negating the frustration that owners feel. 

It may not appear to be so to the Aruba Ocean Club owners, but there is also no doubt that their concerns have been "heard" by Marriott.  Marriott simply hasn't responded to those concerns in a manner which the owners would like.  My opinion is that Marriott should never respond to any owners' concerns with a feel-good kumbaya vibe because they have a duty to every owner and stockholder to perform exactly as the contracts dictate.  I don't want sit-down sessions with splinter owner groups to become the norm.

Lovearuba, as much as you might not think so, we critics here are not trying to sabotage or bolster support for the efforts of your group.  We're trying to focus your efforts so that your issues can be the precedent for how Marriott responds to all owners' concerns.

One way you can focus now is to look at Corey's letter for what it is.  It is a refusal of Marriott to recognize that Marksue has a legal capacity to submit a list of owner names and state that he is requesting a special meeting "on behalf of" those owners.  It is NOT a "_whole refusal of Marriott to recognize the owners request for a special meeting._"

Taken a step further, it is an action by _your_ BOD in accordance with the bylaws to protect _your_ interest by not allowing another owner to represent you without their knowledge of your express consent.  Isn't that what we all want, our BOD's to act in conformity with the bylaws and protect our ownership interests?


----------



## lovearuba

*SueDonJ*



SueDonJ said:


> Lovearuba, as much as you might not think so, we critics here are not trying to sabotage or bolster support for the efforts of your group.  We're trying to focus your efforts so that your issues can be the precedent for how Marriott responds to all owners' concerns.



You are assuming you know what I think.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> You are assuming you know what I think.



Actually, no I'm not.  Did you notice the word "might?"

...

There.  Now that the snippy stuff is out of the way, can it be possible for us to at least make an effort to understand each other?


----------



## lovearuba

*Redweek*

http://www.redweek.com/forums/messa...orum-alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=topic

Topic continues in other sites


----------



## modoaruba

*negative advertisement*

I went on redweek web site to view the blog about the OC.
There has been 2,228 hits on only 25 responses.
How many hits has this site had?
Being a business owner myself it astounds me that Marriott has not come up with a "nice guy solution" and end this negativism.
Just knowing that there a controversy about Marriott would have a potental buyer think twice.
How many potential sales were lost just due to these blogs? Myself,even at a 25% discount that is being offered for a week, I am unsure as to the future of the OC. Why would I want to own a greater part of a liability?
I wish Marriott would explain.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> I went on redweek web site to view the blog about the OC.
> There has been 2,228 hits on only 25 responses.
> How many hits has this site had?
> Being a business owner myself it astounds me that Marriott has not come up with a "nice guy solution" and end this negativism.
> Just knowing that there a controversy about Marriott would have a potental buyer think twice.
> How many potential sales were lost just due to these blogs? Myself,even at a 25% discount that is being offered for a week, I am unsure as to the future of the OC. Why would I want to own a greater part of a liability?
> I wish Marriott would explain.



Why do you think that they have not come up with a "nice guy solution"? What do you think the offer to pay a portion of the roof costs and to lend the money to the HOA is?  Both of those offers have tangible and significant costs associated with them.

As a business owner, can you honestly suggest that you would do much more?

If you had an angry customer, I am sure you would try to figure out how to fix the situation. MVCI has done that.

If the customer was being unreasonable, what extent would you go to? Would you give into his demands just because he was standing outside your store and telling customers that you are a cheat? 

And the problem is further complicated by the fact that the duly elected representatives of the customer have accepted your "nice guy solution". But a small faction want more. 

I think it would be hard to run a business doing anything other than what MVCI has done here. But I have not seen the super secret proof that Marksue has.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> I went on redweek web site to view the blog about the OC.
> There has been 2,228 hits on only 25 responses.
> How many hits has this site had?
> Being a business owner myself it astounds me that Marriott has not come up with a "nice guy solution" and end this negativism.
> Just knowing that there a controversy about Marriott would have a potental buyer think twice.
> How many potential sales were lost just due to these blogs? Myself,even at a 25% discount that is being offered for a week, I am unsure as to the future of the OC. Why would I want to own a greater part of a liability?
> *I wish Marriott would explain.*



Explain what?!?!  I don't understand this criticism.  Marriott HAS explained.  There have been more in-depth communications from the BOD and Marriott officials regarding this one resort's history than any other resort in the system!  This thread almost certainly proves that there is not anything Marriott could say to this group that would satisfy them unless, of course, Marriott issues a statement that reverses the recent fee increases.   

Why would/should Marriott respond even further to this splinter vocal group of specific owners when to do so would alienate a larger group of owners?  In this thread several other Aruba Ocean Club owners who are not supportive of this one group have admitted to support of the BOD's actions, as have many of the non-Ocean Club owners.

Marriott has a responsibility to each owner to act exactly as the contracts dictate, nothing more and nothing less.  No splinter group is owed more.


----------



## lovearuba

SueDonJ said:


> Explain what?!?!  I don't understand this criticism.  Marriott HAS explained.
> Why would/should Marriott respond even further to this splinter vocal group of specific owners when to do so would alienate a larger group of owners?  In this thread several other Aruba Ocean Club owners who are not supportive of this one group have admitted to support of the BOD's actions, as have many of the non-Ocean Club owners.
> 
> Marriott has a responsibility to each owner to act exactly as the contracts dictate, nothing more and nothing less.  No splinter group is owed more.



I dont think 1000 owners are a small splinter group,not all of them post here but they have signed up with Marksue to be included.  Thats a lot of uhappy folks.  We would love to have the maintenance fees reduced since there is no longer ANY value in owning the ocean club.  We know its not likely but our bigger concern is transparency.  

Would you be willing to pay $2300 a year for your timeshare?  Really think about that, what would you do?  Would you try to do something about it.  If your fees went from 1100 last year to 2300 this year, would you take any action or would you say, "this is exactly what the contract dictates".

I would love to see other owners that you suggest might feel alienated by our actions continue to post their views.  I know you and I will never see this issue the same way, I believe putting yourself in the situation is difficult to do but it is why we get upset about the whole issue.  I do appreciate and trust that both you and Eric will continue to offer your opinions for two reasons:  it keeps the issue alive and you do have some great input.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> I dont think 1000 owners are a small splinter group,not all of them post here but they have signed up with Marksue to be included.  Thats a lot of uhappy folks.  We would love to have the maintenance fees reduced since there is no longer ANY value in owning the ocean club.  We know its not likely but our bigger concern is transparency.
> 
> Would you be willing to pay $2300 a year for your timeshare?  Really think about that, what would you do?  Would you try to do something about it.  If your fees went from 1100 last year to 2300 this year, would you take *any action* or would you say, "this is exactly what the contract dictates".



If I owned at a resort that had incurred significant storm damage during a hurricane during the same time it was pending a special assessment, resulting in a large jump in m/f, I would be very frustrated. I would vent a lot.

But I do happen to own at such a resort. One in South Padre, TX that was hit by Hurricane Wilma. When I got the bill, I was not a happy camper. But I recognized that it was not the BOD's fault that the storm hit, and my frustration did not change the fact that the resort needed the funds to meet the insurance deductible and complete the planned improvements to the resort. So I understand your pain. It is your response to the problem I do not understand fully. I understand it from your desire to blame someone for the problem and to lash out, but I do not understand your targets. So no I would not take "any" action in the hope to reduce my assessment.

And no one has explained how a change in the BOD will fix the problem of the $2300 assessment. The only response is along the lines of "we will figure it out when we get in power".  

And you know that another owner has already reported that not all of the 1000 owners who have requested the special meeting were necessarily fully informed by the people who solicited their owner information. So lets not throw around the 1000 figure until the veracity of the number is established.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> I dont think 1000 owners are a small splinter group,not all of them post here but they have signed up with Marksue to be included.  Thats a lot of uhappy folks.  We would love to have the maintenance fees reduced since there is no longer ANY value in owning the ocean club.  We know its not likely but our bigger concern is transparency.
> 
> Would you be willing to pay $2300 a year for your timeshare?  Really think about that, what would you do?  Would you try to do something about it.  If your fees went from 1100 last year to 2300 this year, would you take any action or would you say, "this is exactly what the contract dictates".
> 
> I would love to see other owners that you suggest might feel alienated by our actions continue to post their views.  I know you and I will never see this issue the same way, I believe putting yourself in the situation is difficult to do but it is why we get upset about the whole issue.  I do appreciate and trust that both you and Eric will continue to offer your opinions for two reasons:  it keeps the issue alive and you do have some great input.


Haven't we already established that not all of those owners on the list are totally behind the effort.  Also is it $2300 a year or $2300 for one year, big difference in my book.  Main fees in the range of $1400-1500 a year are not inappropriate for Aruba from what I've seen.


----------



## modoaruba

As far as storm damage, isn't there insurance?
I really do not nor did I understand that we as owners are liable for heavy loss expenses.
I admit I was naive when I bought that we would be responsible for such expenses. I thought that Marriott would take care of such things as a roof since its there name on the building.
Has anyone read all the fine print in the contract and or used a lawyer at the close?
Again, excuse me for being naive, but if I knew then what I know now I would not have bought ANY time share.
As I blogged before, to me, owning a time share,especially at the OC,I would have come out ahead financially by renting.


----------



## lovearuba

*need more info*



Dean said:


> Haven't we already established that not all of those owners on the list are totally behind the effort.  Also is it $2300 a year or $2300 for one year, big difference in my book.  Main fees in the range of $1400-1500 a year are not inappropriate for Aruba from what I've seen.



Show me the page where this was established, I want to put it into context.  Is it one person, two or the mass?  As for the 2300 its at least two years, who knows what we will be paying by 2011.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> *As far as storm damage, isn't there insurance?*
> I really do not nor did I understand that we as owners are liable for heavy loss expenses.
> I admit I was naive when I bought that we would be responsible for such expenses. I thought that Marriott would take care of such things as a roof since its there name on the building.
> Has anyone read all the fine print in the contract and or used a lawyer at the close?
> Again, excuse me for being naive, but if I knew then what I know now I would not have bought ANY time share.
> As I blogged before, to me, owning a time share,especially at the OC,I would have come out ahead financially by renting.



Yes there is. But due to all the major hurricane events in the past 10-15 years, the cost to obtain 100% coverage or coverage with a reasonable deductible - particularly in coastal areas - is prohibitive. Just look at any HOA budgets you have. Since 2000, it is not uncommon to see property insurance costs more than double - and that is with high deductible or co-insurance requirements. Losses from hurricanes have forced so many insurers out of Florida that the state had to form an insurance company to provide last resort insurance.

And it would be nice to be able to make every major decision knowing what the future holds. However if the hurricane had not hit, if the Surf Club had not been built, and economy was not in the shape it is, I think your rent vs own analysis would be much different.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Show me the page where this was established, I want to put it into context.  Is it one person, two or the mass?  As for the 2300 its at least two years, who knows what we will be paying by 2011.



Correct, there was only one report. Go back to Retired To Travels post. Are you really suggesting that it is an isolating case? If so, it might be good to post that fact, i.e.

_"Retired to Travel,

We have looked into this and there was one volunteer who was overzealous in obtaining owner information on the beach at the AOC. Luckily he signed up only one owner. "_

I mean we are talking about someone who was passionate enough to canvas owners while on vacation. I think it is a pretty serious indictment - has your group looked into it? If so - please post the findings. 

Obviously we will find out here shortly if the 1000 owners really know what they signed up for.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> I dont think 1000 owners are a small splinter group,not all of them post here but they have signed up with Marksue to be included.  Thats a lot of uhappy folks.  We would love to have the maintenance fees reduced since there is no longer ANY value in owning the ocean club.  We know its not likely but our bigger concern is transparency.



Well, others have already mentioned that there is the very real possibility that some of those 1,000 owners may not have been aware of exactly what actions would result from their names being collected ... But even if all 1,000 have agreed to petition the BOD for a special meeting to oust three members of the BOD, your group is a minority group of owners.  By definition that makes it a splinter group.

Again with the call for transparency, despite the fact that you have received unprecedented cooperation and communication from Marriott/MVCI/your BOD.  I simply don't understand the call - especially as you want what you are not willing to give.  After all, what is all this cloak and dagger stuff about supersecret official documents and not tipping your hands to Marriott about what your group is holding?  Isn't that a lack of transparency on your part? 



lovearuba said:


> Would you be willing to pay $2300 a year for your timeshare?  Really think about that, what would you do?  Would you try to do something about it.  If your fees went from 1100 last year to 2300 this year, would you take any action or would you say, "this is exactly what the contract dictates".



(Others have separated your $2,300 total into ongoing maintenance fees and single-use special assessment fees - I agree with that.)

I would be frustrated, yes.  I would expect communication from Marriott and my BOD to explain the gigantic hike, yes (which you've gotten.)  I would not attempt to perform legal actions without benefit of legal representation, and I would not involve myself in a splinter group that is making all the wrong moves for all the right reasons.

The contracts DO dictate that if I want to use my timeshares, I must pay the fees.  I like my timeshares, and think I researched them enough to know that the fees are reasonable for the location/property/owner satisfaction, so yes, I would be willing to pay what's owed.  I don't expect my fees, though, to increase percentage-wise as yours have, because a review of my resorts' Operating Budgets tells me that they are as on top of the current and future costs as can reasonably be expected.

Your maintenance fees have increased, according to your BOD's Operating Budget and subsequent communications, due to a lack of reserve collections (a fault of your former BOD) and unexpected exorbitant increases in the island's infrastructure and labor costs.

Your special assessment fees are due to, again, a lack of reserve collections for ten-year property enhancements and re-furnishings, as well as the unfortunate fact that the company who did your original roof is no longer in business which means that there is no warranty coverage for the repairs not covered by insurance.

Marriott/MVCI/your _current_ BOD are not at fault for these issues.  Your _former_ BOD does deserve a good portion of the blame.



lovearuba said:


> I would love to see other owners that you suggest might feel alienated by our actions continue to post their views.  I know you and I will never see this issue the same way, I believe putting yourself in the situation is difficult to do but it is why we get upset about the whole issue.  I do appreciate and trust that both you and Eric will continue to offer your opinions for two reasons:  it keeps the issue alive and you do have some great input.



We have tried to put ourselves into your position, which is why we are offering opposing views that would make sense to us if we were in that position.  And I don't think you'll have any problem with this issue dying a premature death.  Some of us like to talk way too much.


----------



## lovearuba

SueDonJ said:


> Well, others have already mentioned that there is the very real possibility that some of those 1,000 owners may not have been aware of exactly what actions would result from their names being collected ... But even if all 1,000 have agreed to petition the BOD for a special meeting to oust three members of the BOD, your group is a minority group of owners.  By definition that makes it a splinter group.
> 
> 
> We have tried to put ourselves into your position, which is why we are offering opposing views that would make sense to us if we were in that position.  And I don't think you'll have any problem with this issue dying a premature death.  Some of us like to talk way too much.



I agree to disagree with your perspective but again I really do value your input.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> Why do you think that they have not come up with a "nice guy solution"? What do you think the offer to pay a portion of the roof costs and to lend the money to the HOA is?  Both of those offers have tangible and significant costs associated with them.
> 
> As a business owner, can you honestly suggest that you would do much more?
> 
> If you had an angry customer, I am sure you would try to figure out how to fix the situation. MVCI has done that.
> 
> If the customer was being unreasonable, what extent would you go to? Would you give into his demands just because he was standing outside your store and telling customers that you are a cheat?
> 
> And the problem is further complicated by the fact that the duly elected representatives of the customer have accepted your "nice guy solution". But a small faction want more.
> 
> I think it would be hard to run a business doing anything other than what MVCI has done here. But I have not seen the super secret proof that Marksue has.


_________________________________________________________________
If I sold a defective product I would not have my customer pay any part of the fix. I'd pay the whole amount.
You can not use your analogy if Marksue is correct.


----------



## timeos2

*One more time. Warranty & responsibility is not forever*



modoaruba said:


> _________________________________________________________________
> If I sold a defective product I would not have my customer pay any part of the fix. I'd pay the whole amount.
> You can not use your analogy if Marksue is correct.



They didn't sell the roof  - they sold the project. The warranty from the developer ends when the Association takes over control - the BOD then has the onus of maintenance & support. They also inherit any warranty FROM THE BUILDERS - not the Developer. If the builder went out of business - very common in the world of construction companies - then the warranty goes with them unless specifically backed by a third party (as the Windows apparently were).  We have been down that road at resorts (and homes) that have nothing to do with Marriott. The fact that Marriott stood up and took ANY responsibility (nearly 50% for the roof has been reported here) is more than they HAD to do and is a big statement that they wish to "stand behind" what they sold. But the owners / Association got 10+ years service out of the roof(s) so to say Marriott now owes 100%  - that there was NO value derived for all that time by the owners / Association - is a ridiculous argument. It would not get far in any court. Add in the needed repairs / upgrades any decade old resort will need in the normal course of use that wasn't (apparently)  properly funded by sitting Boards for all those years and suddenly there is a BIG bill due from owners. No surprise. No grand scheme to disavow responsibility or run people out of office (everyone seems to be in agreement that there are term limits in place at that resort). 

It seems from this view and this thread that the complaints HAVE been addressed and basically the answers aren't what some want to hear. No surprise there either - "we need more funds from you and you as owners owe it" usually isn't well received. Doesn't change the need, doesn't mean there is any backroom deals - it may simply be the truth that a resort costs money - BIG money - to own and operate. Marriott doesn't OWN it, they only manage it for the owners. They shouldn't be expected to pay to upgrade and maintain it as that is the owners responsibility.  Once Marriott sold it & turned it over to the Association (and they accepted & ran it for many years) any offers of support by Marriott is a bonus not a right. At least one group of owners doesn't seem to grasp that and, if they are successful but wrong about what is "owed", may end up costing all owners even more.  I hope the majority of owners are involved on deciding where this all goes in the long run.  So far it seems to be in the wrong direction if lower costs and better operations are the goal. Is that this Board, the old Board(s), the owners who elect those Boards or Marriott's fault? MAybe a little of each? Will booting the current Board make things right? Better be sure before owners take that expensive step or more. The current costs may be dwarfed if the wrong actions are taken.  

Still a very interesting thread even if one ignores the sideshow of "renting is cheaper" which doesn't really play in this drama.  Blog on!


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> If I sold a defective product I would not have my customer pay any part of the fix. I'd pay the whole amount.
> You can not use your analogy *if Marksue is correct*.



And *that's* the ultimate unknown in this entire thread, isn't it?

I would guess that *if* Marksue was holding anything that could prove his contention that Marriott/MVCI owes anything more to these owners than what has already been offered, then the legal minds that he has supposedly consulted with would have suggested to him that he put his cards on the table and force Marriott/MVCI to either disprove his evidence or pay up.

All this cloak and dagger, not tipping our hands, threatening, insinuating and intimating only serves to give the appearance that there is no substance behind Marksue's words.  Why anyone would think that Marriott/MVCI would respond positively to any of it, is beyond me.


----------



## SueDonJ

timeos2 said:


> They didn't sell the roof  - they sold the project. ...  Blog on!



Excellent post, I agree with every bit of it.  (And I got a chuckle out of the "Blog on!" - reminds me of peace signs and bell-bottom pants.   )


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> For those that are interested there has been a great deal of email back and forth between myself and the following people regarding the special meeting ...
> 
> This is the last message sent:
> 
> TO AOC Board, MVCI, MI
> 
> This issue has gone on much longer than necessary. The owners have been stonewalled in their rights per the governing documents of the property they purchased. With the refusal of the Ocean Club Board, MVCI and MI to respond to my request for a special meeting, I have had no choice but to retain legal council in Aruba to go along with my legal council in the US.  If the request of the owners are not completed *by 5/11/09* you will be hearing from my legal representation. ...



Marksue, 5/11/09 is passed.  Have you actually retained legal counsel?  Have you or they taken further action?


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> _________________________________________________________________
> If I sold a defective product I would not have my customer pay any part of the fix. I'd pay the whole amount.
> You can not use your analogy if Marksue is correct.



So if you were a roofer, and you sold a roof 10 years ago - a 20 year roof. And for 10 years that roof worked. Then it failed. And the customer comes back and says "the roof is defective" give me a new roof. " 

But you point to the warranty. It says it is a 20 year roof, and if it fails you will replace the roof on a pro-rated basis. 

Customer says - "No. I want a brand new roof for free." But they enjoyed the benefit of 10 years of use. And they refuse to accept a reasonable offer - one that is standard in most industries where the product has a useful life (tires, roofs, etc). 

You would be the "nice guy" and cover all the costs?

If so, tell me where I can go and do business with you. I need to make it quick though because that might not be a sustainable business model.

And the description above is exactly what is happening here. Only difference is that MVCI is stepping in to fulfill the warranty - something they do not need to do, but are doing as the "nice guy". I guess they should just bite bullet and eat all of the cost. Never mind the roof has had 10 years of use.



SueDonJ said:


> Excellent post, I agree with every bit of it.  (And I got a chuckle out of the "Blog on!" - reminds me of peace signs and bell-bottom pants.   )



Same here - I was working more of a "Truck on" visual.


----------



## thinze3

SueDonJ said:


> Marksue, 5/11/09 is passed.  Have you actually retained legal counsel?  Have you or they taken further action?



He's probably in Aruba - floating the Lazy River of the SURF Club. :ignore:


----------



## Luckybee

SueDonJ said:


> Again with the call for transparency, despite the fact that you have received unprecedented cooperation and communication from Marriott/MVCI/your BOD.  I simply don't understand the call - especially as you want what you are not willing to give.  After all, what is all this cloak and dagger stuff about supersecret official documents and not tipping your hands to Marriott about what your group is holding?  Isn't that a lack of transparency on your part?



As much as I've vowed to stay off this board because quite frankly I personally find it silly to debate with someone who has no personal interest in the Ocean Club(yes ive heard the arguement that this affects all Marriott owners but quite frankly I think that many have nothing better to do)I find some comments so outrageous I just cant help myself. It isn't a matter of cloak and dagger, rather it is because of legal reasons that many things cannot be dealt with on a public forum , moreover, if you read back in this diatribe you'll find that Mark, many moons ago was criticized for tipping his hand too much on this very board. Marriott is well aware of the issues at hand, no one has to justify why the many owners feel as they do to anyone on this board. If it wasnt for the fact that this board is a good way to keep the issue out there Im sure that no owner would even bother wasting their time providing any info here.  The information that many of the owners are privy to, is available to all owners. I can personally say that I am aware of a number of owners who once they had an opportunity to be , shall we say , enlightened, feel pretty strongly about the need for a vote, that is certainly the situation we found ourselves in. Matter of fact...Im not aware of any owner who once they have spoken to those who have info, came away with any confidence in the way the board is operating. 
As an aside we've paid our assesment, we're not worried about our assesment, we are however worried about the manner in which our current board is operating.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> As much as I've vowed to stay off this board because quite frankly I personally find it silly to debate with someone who has no personal interest in the Ocean Club(yes ive heard the arguement that this affects all Marriott owners but quite frankly I think that many have nothing better to do)I find some comments so outrageous I just cant help myself. It isn't a matter of cloak and dagger, rather it is because of legal reasons that many things cannot be dealt with on a public forum , moreover, if you read back in this diatribe you'll find that Mark, many moons ago was criticized for tipping his hand too much on this very board. Marriott is well aware of the issues at hand, no one has to justify why the many owners feel as they do to anyone on this board. If it wasnt for the fact that this board is a good way to keep the issue out there Im sure that no owner would even bother wasting their time providing any info here.  The information that many of the owners are privy to, is available to all owners. I can personally say that I am aware of a number of owners who once they had an opportunity to be , shall we say , enlightened, feel pretty strongly about the need for a vote, that is certainly the situation we found ourselves in. Matter of fact...Im not aware of any owner who once they have spoken to those who have info, came away with any confidence in the way the board is operating.
> As an aside we've paid our assesment, we're not worried about our assesment, we are however worried about the manner in which our current board is operating.



Well, all that does is beg the question, are you worried _enough _to make sure that whatever actions taken in defense of your position are the correct actions (according to the bylaws and contract language, I mean), or aren't you?

Here's a hypothetical.  I want a new superduper fancier pool area put in somewhere on SurfWatch's property.  I go to South Carolina and research the public records to compile a list of however many names it takes to satisfy the 10% requirement for a petition to the SurfWatch BOD.  I send a copy of the list to the board with a letter in which I say that my request is being made "on behalf of" the owners whose names are on the list.  Would you expect the BOD to accept my word as representation of that group of owners?  I'm guessing you would, because that's the expectation that I'm getting from reading the responses to Marksue's failed attempt.

(I would never expect it to happen, but for purposes of this hypothetical...) Okay, the BOD accepts my request without any further inquiry or requirements, contrary to the bylaws, and establishes a date for the special meeting/vote.  They put together and mail the necessary paperwork to all SurfWatch owners, so that each will be able to either attend the special meeting or submit a proxy vote for the proposal.  Upon receipt, whatever majority is necessary to pass the proposal thinks, "hey, cool, a new pool, you bet I like that idea!" and votes in favor of it thereby setting in motion whatever permits and construction bids are necessary.  Ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching - there go the maintenance fees skyrocketing all because I got a harebrained idea and my BOD didn't act in accordance with the bylaws.

Again, if the situation at the Aruba Ocean Club is so deteriorated that it requires actions against the BOD in accordance with the bylaws, why aren't you owners who are in support of those actions demanding that they be as correct as only qualified legal representation can determine?


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> ... quite frankly I think that many have nothing better to do ...



And yes, I have nothing better to do.  Vacation is in a week and I misjudged how long it would take me to complete the jobs that needed to be done before I left, and there is not enough time to begin another.  This board is as good a place as any to waste time before I leave, and I'm in good company.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> So if you were a roofer, and you sold a roof 10 years ago - a 20 year roof. And for 10 years that roof worked. Then it failed. And the customer comes back and says "the roof is defective" give me a new roof. "
> 
> But you point to the warranty. It says it is a 20 year roof, and if it fails you will replace the roof on a pro-rated basis.
> 
> Customer says - "No. I want a brand new roof for free." But they enjoyed the benefit of 10 years of use. And they refuse to accept a reasonable offer - one that is standard in most industries where the product has a useful life (tires, roofs, etc).
> 
> You would be the "nice guy" and cover all the costs?
> 
> If so, tell me where I can go and do business with you. I need to make it quick though because that might not be a sustainable business model.
> 
> And the description above is exactly what is happening here. Only difference is that MVCI is stepping in to fulfill the warranty - something they do not need to do, but are doing as the "nice guy". I guess they should just bite bullet and eat all of the cost. Never mind the roof has had 10 years of use.
> 
> 
> 
> Same here - I was working more of a "Truck on" visual.



I have you know I have a successful business of 29 years.
One of the reasons is that if my product does not last till it's warranty date I will replace it 100%.
My loss will bring in new business 10 fold. Which it has.
My name is on the building and will not be tarnished.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> Show me the page where this was established, I want to put it into context.  Is it one person, two or the mass?  As for the 2300 its at least two years, who knows what we will be paying by 2011.


I don't know how many and I don't think you or MarkSue does either.  Eric has documented the info for you.  I think we can safely assume this one report represents far more people that aren't on board as you are proceeding.  If it were a petition and they went to certify the names, I'd guess you'd lose at least 20-30% or more of those on that list, likely more if you ask them point blank if their in favor of a recall.  I don't think it's been established that anyone can speak for the group in question, other than the BOD who are duly elected.  That doesn't make those upset wrong however but it does affect the legalities involved.


----------



## lovearuba

*Dean*

Do you own at the ocean club?


----------



## tlwmkw

Luckybee,

I'm sorry that you are offended by anyone, other than the Ocean Club owners, taking an interest in this public forum- however it is a public forum and others who do see that it has an impact on them will take an interest and give an opinion.  You have many people out there who have dealt with situations similar to this one in the past and can offer you great insights and help in your situation.

You claim that Marksue has top-secret information that will prove that Marriott  or the board is up to something (I'm not sure what exactly) that cannot be revealed because revealing it will "show your hand".  This is not a poker game we are talking about.  I don't know if you have been involved in litigation before but if you do go that route then any evidence that you have, and that you may present in court, will have to be disclosed as part of the discovery process.  This means that any documents will have to be released prior to a trial to the opposing law team so that they can prepare their defense.  There won't be a possibility for any surprises to Marriott or to anyone else.  The best use of any "evidence" would be to reveal it to Marriott/MVCI before you get into the massive expense of a law suit.  It this evidence is iron clad, as you say it is, then Marriott are smart enough to settle with you now and not go through with an expensive law suit which they would be guaranteed to lose.  Since no one has presented any evidence of a massive cover-up of some kind it is starting to look like a lot of bluff on Marksue's part.

I don't think anyone has given any answer as to what will happen if you do have the meeting and unseat the current board- how will this change anything that is going on with the Ocean Club?  You need to figure out how these actions that you are taking will benefit you and the other owners.  No one has addressed that.

JMHO- tlwmkw


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> Do you own at the ocean club?


No, I believe I posted a couple of pages ago that my interest was in how Marriott conducted themselves as it might translate to their program as a whole and to other resorts.  But why should it matter.  If you want to limit discussion to only OC or OC/SC owners you might consider a yahoo group with that as a requirement.  However, I have owned multiple weeks off and on at another resort in Aruba for over 10 years in one capacity or another seeing dues triple and at least 3 SA over that time with one of them due in part to embezzlement and at least one to frank mismanagement leading to law suites and ousting of the management company.  I owned as many as 8 units at the time I finally converted those units to the points system.  Luckily I was smart enough and/or lucky enough to be in between units for the most part for the majority of those extra costs.  My SA alone the last time would have been almost $8K with another $4.5K for the regular dues.

However, I did pass up a 2 BR OS unit for $8900 a couple of years ago, does that count?


----------



## lovearuba

*Dean*

I was just interested in understanding how deeply you could understand the issue, it matters to me.  I want to hear from owners although I do enjoy reading the other comments and fondly remember when I thought highly of Marriott too.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> I was just interested in understanding how deeply you could understand the issue, it matters to me.  I want to hear from owners although I do enjoy reading the other comments and fondly remember when I thought highly of Marriott too.



I think it's a bit too convenient for you to dismiss the opinions of folks who do not own at Aruba Ocean Club by insinuating that they're not able to "deeply understand the issue," especially since you refuse to divulge information that may or may not prove that there is a reason to object to the BOD's performance.

Even if you were to "show your hand", your critics' opinions will still be dependent upon how reliable that information is.  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if it's been obtained or disseminated in a fashion similar to the information that is contained in this thread, it's highly suspect.  The only constants since the beginning of this thread are the lack of reasoning and moderate approach.


----------



## dioxide45

timeos2 said:


> They didn't sell the roof  - they sold the project. The warranty from the developer ends when the Association takes over control - the BOD then has the onus of maintenance & support. They also inherit any warranty FROM THE BUILDERS - not the Developer. If the builder went out of business - very common in the world of construction companies - then the warranty goes with them unless specifically backed by a third party (as the Windows apparently were).



The argument they are trying to make is that Marriott knew the roof was bad when they sold the resort to the owners. Even though they didn't build it or warrant it. Not that it just broke down over time.

I don't know if the argument has merit or not. Though in my opinion, what they have been offered is a good offer and I would take it. I may not be happy with it, but it is better than nothing.


----------



## modoaruba

*phone solicitation*

Just got home and someone called leaving a message that said if I want to sell or rent my unit at the OC at a profit to call a toll free number.
Anyone else get this call?


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> Just got home and someone called leaving a message that said if I want to sell or rent my unit at the OC at a profit to call a toll free number.
> Anyone else get this call?


No but it's a scam if you're not aware.  You pay them $499 (pick a number) and they will sell or rent it for you for a very high price.  Run away.


----------



## SueDonJ

dioxide45 said:


> The argument they are trying to make is that Marriott knew the roof was bad when they sold the resort to the owners. Even though they didn't build it or warrant it. Not that it just broke down over time.
> 
> I don't know if the argument has merit or not. Though in my opinion, what they have been offered is a good offer and I would take it. I may not be happy with it, but it is better than nothing.



I agree, it's a good offer.  But I wonder what it means as a precedent for all MVCI owners - will Marriott/MVCI be expected from this point on to cover any similar non-recoverable warranty protections, and what kind of developer price increases might be anticipated in order for Marriott/MVCI to absorb such costs?  And I still don't understand what the roof issue has to do with the complaints surrounding the current BOD's performance. 

Marksue has said that the roof leaked long before the decision to replace it was made, at least as far back as 1999 when he purchased.  If that is the case, why weren't the owners petitioning the BOD back then to repair the roof before further damage required a full replacement?  Why didn't the owners question the BOD's apparent lack of reserve collections to fund either roof repairs or replacement?  Why didn't any of this come to light or bother any of the owners who were supposedly watching the building leak, until the bills came?  A penny saved, in this case, didn't earn anyone anything but grief.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> I was just interested in understanding how deeply you could understand the issue, it matters to me.  I want to hear from owners although I do enjoy reading the other comments and fondly remember when I thought highly of Marriott too.


I am very experienced in timeshares and Marriott even if I don't post on TUG much anymore.  I predicted Spicebush and Swallowtail would go away when essentially everyone else was saying no way.  I predicted Vail would split and part would stay Marriott when many in the know were saying it couldn't happen and couldn't legally be done.  

If I read your post correctly you're really asking how emotional I am about the issue and IMO, that is exactly the opposite of what's needed here.  It seems some are too emotional and have lost objectivity.  Use your emotion to take this as far as you feel it needs to go but use the logic and powers available to you without emotion to get an endpoint.  In this case the burden of proof is on those accusing Marriott.  IMO, the proper approach IF one wants to allege wrongdoing and get money from other sources than the owners is not going to be to worry about the BOD.   But rather to file legal action against the legal entity portion of Marriott that sold it, the company that Marriott took over the project from and the roofing company.  That action will need to be in Aruban court from what I understand.  And given you currently have one member of the BOD who's sympathetic to your cause, the sooner you proceed the better as to your chances of success it would seem to me.  I'd think you could find an Aruban lawyer who's not enamored with Marriott to take this on.  Otherwise the best course of action for the members as a whole is to likely take the compromise and run, if helping the members is the main issue here.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> I have you know I have a successful business of 29 years.
> One of the reasons is that if my product does not last till it's warranty date I will replace it 100%.
> My loss will bring in new business 10 fold. Which it has.
> My name is on the building and will not be tarnished.



If you are making those statements with the conviction that you would act differently, then good for you. But it begs the question:

What is the average frequency of failure?
And what is the average retail price of that unit that is replaced?
And how much is your out of pocket for that unit?
Who is backing the warranty?

You could be a paper salesman. Think about it.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Do you own at the ocean club?



When will you you stop asking this frickin question? 

WHY DOES IT MATTER FOR THE 5TH TIME!

Quit asking everyone who provides an opinion that does not conform to yours that question. 

You have chosen to have this debate on the largest timeshare owners board on the internet.  

If you are going to post here, be willing to accept that not everyone will agree with you. And those that do not will respond.

Accept it.


----------



## Luckybee

tlwmkw said:


> Luckybee,
> 
> I'm sorry that you are offended by anyone, other than the Ocean Club owners, taking an interest in this public forum- however it is a public forum and others who do see that it has an impact on them will take an interest and give an opinion.  You have many people out there who have dealt with situations similar to this one in the past and can offer you great insights and help in your situation.
> 
> You claim that Marksue has top-secret information that will prove that Marriott  or the board is up to something (I'm not sure what exactly) that cannot be revealed because revealing it will "show your hand".  This is not a poker game we are talking about.  I don't know if you have been involved in litigation before but if you do go that route then any evidence that you have, and that you may present in court, will have to be disclosed as part of the discovery process.  This means that any documents will have to be released prior to a trial to the opposing law team so that they can prepare their defense.  There won't be a possibility for any surprises to Marriott or to anyone else.  The best use of any "evidence" would be to reveal it to Marriott/MVCI before you get into the massive expense of a law suit.  It this evidence is iron clad, as you say it is, then Marriott are smart enough to settle with you now and not go through with an expensive law suit which they would be guaranteed to lose.  Since no one has presented any evidence of a massive cover-up of some kind it is starting to look like a lot of bluff on Marksue's part.
> 
> I don't think anyone has given any answer as to what will happen if you do have the meeting and unseat the current board- how will this change anything that is going on with the Ocean Club?  You need to figure out how these actions that you are taking will benefit you and the other owners.  No one has addressed that.
> 
> JMHO- tlwmkw



No one has to address anything here...that is my point . Perhaps you didnt read my post...I didnt say there was any hidden info...matter of fact I said Marriott was well aware of the issues . So are the owners who choose to avail themselves of the opportunity. My point was that neither Mark nor anyone else needs to provide nor justify info to anyone who has no interest in the OC. What info he does provide is up to him and the others involved in organizing the efforts. 
As an fyi.. I have had a great deal of litigation experience, and am well aware of evidentiary rules ...I suspect a great deal more than most here


----------



## lovearuba

ecwinch said:


> When will you you stop asking this frickin question?
> 
> WHY DOES IT MATTER FOR THE 5TH TIME!
> 
> Quit asking everyone who provides an opinion that does not conform to yours that question.
> 
> You have chosen to have this debate on the largest timeshare owners board on the internet.
> 
> If you are going to post here, be willing to accept that not everyone will agree with you. And those that do not will respond.
> 
> Accept it.



Why is it you can get away with swearing and insulting folks on this site?  Why is it you can ask any question you see fit and take issue when anyone else asks a simple question?  Why is it that you expect people that post to this site to remember every comment made in previous pages?


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> and fondly remember when I thought highly of Marriott too.


I'm always amused at the dichotomy of timesharing.  By necessity one has to be willing to turn a blind eye to the bad side to enjoy the rewards and for some of us, the savings involved.  Usually you can draw the line between the sales system and the resorts and management themselves as for the good and bad but not always.  It has been interesting to me and amusing at times to see people who drank the kool-aid and have become disenchanted for whatever reason.  I've seen the same dynamics with some DVC members over the last year or so when there were some minor changes to the system that they just couldn't fathom.  I'd say that if you had bought one of the resorts that were previously Marriott mainly for the internal Marriott trading, you would have been off the bandwagon long before now.  I remember some that did so directly from Marriott only months before Marriott and the HH resorts parted companies.  Then when Marriott parted from their previous approach of letting such people do an equity trade for something else, snarling and gnashing of teeth.  No doubt such companies are literally the 600 # Gorilla in the room and ultimately we as owners are betting on how they perform and are truly at their mercy in many ways.  IMO, the info about Beachplace may be far more negative if one is evaluating Marriott than is this issue because it speaks more to the management side than the sales/development side.  While I think in that instance Marriott was more on the correct side of the issues, I was interested they were willing to play hardball as overtly as they apparently did. The Vail issue is applicable to the same principles I think as well, that of realization that they were not a pushover and that there was more in consideration than simply the best interest of a given resort and it's owners.


----------



## timeos2

*No wealthy benefactor here*



Dean said:


> While I think in that instance Marriott was more on the correct side of the issues, I was interested they were willing to play hardball as overtly as they apparently did. The Vail issue is applicable to the same principles I think as well, that of realization that they were not a pushover and that there was more in consideration than simply the best interest of a given resort and it's owners.



Great point. Those who somehow think Marriott (or Disney, Hilton, et al) are benevolent grandfather types looking out for their beloved grandchild owners are sadly mistaken. They couldn't care less about the buyers - they are in it as a money making corporation period.  

They have guidelines - 15% return on whatever they put in. 15% profit on contractors, and more. They build it to a certain look, put their name outside and then sit back to rake in the management fees PLUS healthy profit.  As long as the Associations go along and pay the going rate the name stays and the management stays.  The minute  a Board or resort starts to question the fees, wonders why only specific contractors can be used, why items have to be purchased from XX source only then the pressure starts. It's our way or the highway and they will walk away if things get challenged. They have no loyalty to a location/resort, no grand plans to protect owners or prop up resale prices. They simply want a way to make the preset profit with as little effort as possible through automatically inflated fees and overhead. If they don't get it say goodbye. 

The buyers into those types of branded properties have to realize they are paying homage at every turn to  keep the corporate beast around and happy. If they don't want to the beast will lumber down the road and start all new again. The owners are not the focus only the bottom line. Associations either kowtow or move to another management.  End of story.


----------



## JimC

timeos2 said:


> Great point. Those who somehow think Marriott (or Disney, Hilton, et al) are benevolent grandfather types looking out for their beloved grandchild owners are sadly mistaken. They couldn't care less about the buyers - they are in it as a money making corporation period....



I agree that the developer has a profit motive.  And I agree with your other points regarding very strict operational standards, even a bit of highhandedness in their approach to certain issues.  But I believe it is a bit harsh to say that "they couldn't care less about the buyers".  Great companies care very much about their customers.  The customer is their source of existence.  

I can't speak for others, but the Marriott reputation and brand is why I own MVCI (and Disney for that matter).  I'm a platinum rewards member because I am a regular fixture in their hotels and resorts.  Why?  I get consistently good service and product at a reasonable price.  I prefer them over Hilton, Starwood and the others *because* they set higher standards and strictly enforce them.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Why is it you can get away with swearing and insulting folks on this site?  Why is it you can ask any question you see fit and take issue when anyone else asks a simple question?  Why is it that you expect people that post to this site to remember every comment made in previous pages?



I apologize if I offended you with my strong use of a word that is commonly heard on network television.

I am just extremely tired of this question being asked of everyone who voices an opinion that does not support the cause. The question keeps getting asked, and answered, and then we point out how it does not matter. But you keep asking that question as if it does matter. If it really helps you in some fashion, then might I suggest that you PM the individual and ask it.

Sometimes, I feel like I am in that Groundhog Day movie with Bill Murray.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*At Least It's An All-Time Great Movie.*




ecwinch said:


> Sometimes, I feel like I am in that Groundhog Day movie with Bill Murray.


That's 1 of my favorite movies.  Truly great. 

Your point about the repeated question (_mox nix_ whether it's relevant or irrelevant) reminds me of 1 of my late father's observations about life -- _It's Not One Thing Right After Another, It's The Same Blasted Thing Over & Over Again._ 

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


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> No one has to address anything here...that is my point . Perhaps you didnt read my post...I didnt say there was any hidden info...matter of fact I said Marriott was well aware of the issues . So are the owners who choose to avail themselves of the opportunity. My point was that neither Mark nor anyone else needs to provide nor justify info to anyone who has no interest in the OC. What info he does provide is up to him and the others involved in organizing the efforts.
> As an fyi.. I have had a great deal of litigation experience, and am well aware of evidentiary rules ...I suspect a great deal more than most here



Given your litigation experience, when you have a petition before a decision making body, what would you expect to happen if information was offered that endorsement of the petition was solicited under false pretenses?

I do not think anyone is saying that Mark is obligated to post any information here. Just that in making his request for support on this board, he has failed to articulate his plan for addressing the problems. It certainly would be helpful.

For instance, I think if he had fully disclosed that he was just gathering owner names, someone might have suggested that a higher standard might need to be met. 

Of course that would probably have been viewed by some as just criticizing the crusade. 

And I have elevated this to crusade status now. I used to think it was just a "cause".


----------



## Dean

Luckybee said:


> As much as I've vowed to stay off this board because quite frankly I personally find it silly to debate with someone who has no personal interest in the Ocean Club(yes ive heard the arguement that this affects all Marriott owners but quite frankly I think that many have nothing better to do)I find some comments so outrageous I just cant help myself. It isn't a matter of cloak and dagger, rather it is because of legal reasons that many things cannot be dealt with on a public forum , moreover, if you read back in this diatribe you'll find that Mark, many moons ago was criticized for tipping his hand too much on this very board. Marriott is well aware of the issues at hand, no one has to justify why the many owners feel as they do to anyone on this board. If it wasnt for the fact that this board is a good way to keep the issue out there Im sure that no owner would even bother wasting their time providing any info here.  The information that many of the owners are privy to, is available to all owners. I can personally say that I am aware of a number of owners who once they had an opportunity to be , shall we say , enlightened, feel pretty strongly about the need for a vote, that is certainly the situation we found ourselves in. Matter of fact...Im not aware of any owner who once they have spoken to those who have info, came away with any confidence in the way the board is operating.
> As an aside we've paid our assesment, we're not worried about our assesment, we are however worried about the manner in which our current board is operating.


I think all Marriott owners, those that belong to II as a minimum, have a vested interest in all of the Marriott resorts, particularly the better ones.  However, that interest is somewhat different for those that own elsewhere than it for the owners.  Aside from measuring Marriott as a management company (different company technically than the developer), the more top Marriott resorts the better so I can possibly trade in to them.  No one is forcing anyone else to respond, or not to.  I am personally offended at the implication that I shouldn't post on this thread or this topic because I am not an owner there.  



> As an fyi.. I have had a great deal of litigation experience, and am well aware of evidentiary rules ...I suspect a great deal more than most here


Which I believe means very little unless that experience is in the area of timeshare or Condo law or the Aruban courts as a minimum.  I have posted a number of times over the years that an experienced timeshare person is far more knowledgeable on timeshare law than is a non timeshare experienced attorney.  In addition I've experienced quite an awakening over the years as to how Aruba is quite the good ole boy network when it comes to such matters.


----------



## Luckybee

Dean...I only mentioned it because of the question posed to me which was whether I "had any experience with litigation"...dont wish to get into "my father is bigger than yours" if you understand my meaning


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> No one has to address anything here...that is my point . Perhaps you didnt read my post...I didnt say there was any hidden info...matter of fact I said Marriott was well aware of the issues . So are the owners who choose to avail themselves of the opportunity. My point was that neither Mark nor anyone else needs to provide nor justify info to anyone who has no interest in the OC. What info he does provide is up to him and the others involved in organizing the efforts.
> As an fyi.. I have had a great deal of litigation experience, and am well aware of evidentiary rules ...I suspect a great deal more than most here



You're right, no one is _required_ to post anything here.  But some folks have obviously _chosen_ to do so, you included, and anyone's posts are up for discussion.  That's the nature of a message board - would you have us change the message board nature to suit you?

As far as your contention that Marriott is aware of all of the information that your group is holding, I think that you might want to check with everyone else in the group to verify that.  There have been posts here alluding to information being held back from Marriott - where do you think your critics got the idea that such a thing was happening?  Not only that, members of your group have used Private Messages here to contradict your words.  I got one just the other day and among other things, the writer states, "_... when folks ask us to respond to things we cannot because we really dont want to give Marriott everything. They read this post ..._" and "_... We cant post [those] here because they give up too much._"

There have been other posts here in which the lack of communication among the members of your group is apparent - one person posted about an email she'd received in which another owner stated that she thought Mark's efforts were going to result in lower fees, and another posted about meeting someone at the resort who was shocked to learn that the list they added their names to might be used to recall the board.  Your non-Ocean Club owner critics are not making this stuff up - those two posts were made by owners.  After all of the contradictions that we see right here in this thread, is it really any wonder that any individual statement made by an owner in support of this crusade, can be considered suspect?

Finally, perhaps you might want to offer the benefit of your extensive legal knowledge to Marksue (or maybe you should have before this, in order to prevent that petition/list of names debacle.)  He is having apparent difficulties with the simplest of legal procedures.


----------



## SueDonJ

timeos2 said:


> Great point. Those who somehow think Marriott (or Disney, Hilton, et al) are benevolent grandfather types looking out for their beloved grandchild owners are sadly mistaken. They couldn't care less about the buyers - they are in it as a money making corporation period.
> 
> They have guidelines - 15% return on whatever they put in. 15% profit on contractors, and more. They build it to a certain look, put their name outside and then sit back to rake in the management fees PLUS healthy profit.  As long as the Associations go along and pay the going rate the name stays and the management stays.  The minute  a Board or resort starts to question the fees, wonders why only specific contractors can be used, why items have to be purchased from XX source only then the pressure starts. It's our way or the highway and they will walk away if things get challenged. They have no loyalty to a location/resort, no grand plans to protect owners or prop up resale prices. They simply want a way to make the preset profit with as little effort as possible through automatically inflated fees and overhead. If they don't get it say goodbye.
> 
> The buyers into those types of branded properties have to realize they are paying homage at every turn to  keep the corporate beast around and happy. If they don't want to the beast will lumber down the road and start all new again. The owners are not the focus only the bottom line. Associations either kowtow or move to another management.  End of story.



I agree with this.  I think it can be said, though, that it's not only the Marriott brand name on or the quality standard of the resorts that distinguish a Marriott property.  Marriott has built a reputation in the hospitality industry that has earned the company a high customer service rating, and I think it matters to the company to continue to receive those high ratings.  Of course probably the most important reason is the bottom line profit margin, no doubt, but it's not the only reason.

That said, I expect a high level of customer service from the front-line employees who staff the resorts because that's their job.  Not so much from the executives - their job is to walk the tightrope between the financial details and the contractual obligations.


----------



## SueDonJ

JimC said:


> I agree that the developer has a profit motive.  And I agree with your other points regarding very strict operational standards, even a bit of highhandedness in their approach to certain issues.  But I believe it is a bit harsh to say that "they couldn't care less about the buyers".  Great companies care very much about their customers.  The customer is their source of existence.
> 
> I can't speak for others, but the Marriott reputation and brand is why I own MVCI (and Disney for that matter).  I'm a platinum rewards member because I am a regular fixture in their hotels and resorts.  Why?  I get consistently good service and product at a reasonable price.  I prefer them over Hilton, Starwood and the others *because* they set higher standards and strictly enforce them.



Ah, see, I should have read a little further.  Nice post.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> Given your litigation experience, when you have a petition before a decision making body, what would you expect to happen if information was offered that endorsement of the petition was solicited under false pretenses?
> 
> I do not think anyone is saying that Mark is obligated to post any information here. Just that in making his request for support on this board, he has failed to articulate his plan for addressing the problems. It certainly would be helpful.
> 
> For instance, I think if he had fully disclosed that he was just gathering owner names, someone might have suggested that a higher standard might need to be met.
> 
> Of course that would probably have been viewed by some as just criticizing the crusade.
> 
> And I have elevated this to crusade status now. I used to think it was just a "cause".



And again, I should have read further.  You people are quick!


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> Dean...I only mentioned it because of the question posed to me which was whether I "had any experience with litigation"...dont wish to get into "my father is bigger than yours" if you understand my meaning



So your "._..I suspect a great deal more than most here_" was posted for what reason, exactly?


----------



## ecwinch

Susan,

Are you trying to beat me to 1000 posts? Do I need to hit you with the multi-quote button?


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> Susan,
> 
> Are you trying to beat me to 1000 posts? Do I need to hit you with the multi-quote button?



Dang, my plan is foiled.   

Hey, wait, there's a multi-quote trick to upping the post counts?  I never considered that strategy.  Hmmmmm.


----------



## Dean

Luckybee said:


> Dean...I only mentioned it because of the question posed to me which was whether I "had any experience with litigation"...dont wish to get into "my father is bigger than yours" if you understand my meaning


I understood exactly what you did and what you were responding to.  However, you were insinuating you knew more than they did in this area and more than you'd let on previously which may or may not be the case in this instance.  My statements were to point out that being an attorney doesn't automatically mean much and in this situation, MOST attorneys really don't have a clue when it comes to timeshares and Aruban Law.  I'm not saying I do especially either but I've learned it's different in Aruba and different with timeshares where you have a significant body of legal paperwork that the owner signed they accepted.

That being said, my first statement was more the meat of my post.  Suggesting that one should not post unless they own at the OC or they agree with you and a few others (implied but not stated) I find insulting in this context.


----------



## Luckybee

Dean said:


> I understood exactly what you did and what you were responding to.  However, you were insinuating you knew more than they did in this area and more than you'd let on previously which may or may not be the case in this instance.  My statements were to point out that being an attorney doesn't automatically mean much and in this situation, MOST attorneys really don't have a clue when it comes to timeshares and Aruban Law.  I'm not saying I do especially either but I've learned it's different in Aruba and different with timeshares where you have a significant body of legal paperwork that the owner signed they accepted.
> 
> That being said, my first statement was more the meat of my post.  Suggesting that one should not post unless they own at the OC or they agree with you and a few others (implied but not stated) I find insulting in this context.



Didnt say you shouldnt post, rather I simply indicated that it makes no sense to me why those who have no personal interest are involved...and btw it isnt a "few" others...may be on this board but by far isnt a few


----------



## Dean

Luckybee said:


> Didnt say you shouldnt post, rather I simply indicated that it makes no sense to me why those who have no personal interest are involved...and btw it isnt a "few" others...may be on this board but by far isnt a few


I was referring to those on this thread, I don't know how many others are or are not involved and if I did, I wouldn't know how many truly feel the same way as those who have posted unless they posted themselves.  True you didn't say no one could post but you certainly implied they shouldn't or it was somehow inappropriate or in your words "silly".  No real difference in how I look at it.  In my estimation some of those non owners have added as much or more to this thread in terms of substance of the discussion than have owners and some of that substance should be helpful to those interested in pushing forward.  In the long run this thread is a "tale ... full of sound and furry, signifying nothing".  I left out the "told by an idiot" part because it's not applicable.  Ultimately this is going to blow over or go to court, those are the only 2 legitimate outcomes I can see.  I don't see one being able to substantiate most of  the names that have been collected based on what's been posted on this thread.  It should cont to be interesting for a while.


----------



## Eric

Luckybee said:


> Didnt say you shouldnt post, rather I simply indicated that it makes no sense to me why those who have no personal interest are involved...and btw it isnt a "few" others...may be on this board but by far isnt a few



yeah, I agree. That freedom of speech thing on the internet is way to liberal. I think if you don't own at a resort, you should have no opinion about that resort. yeah, that sounds right.


----------



## lovearuba

ecwinch said:


> I apologize if I offended you with my strong use of a word that is commonly heard on network television.
> 
> I am just extremely tired of this question being asked of everyone who voices an opinion that does not support the cause. The question keeps getting asked, and answered, and then we point out how it does not matter. But you keep asking that question as if it does matter. If it really helps you in some fashion, then might I suggest that you PM the individual and ask it.


 
ECWINCH, I ask the question and will continue to ask the question if the persons profile name appears new to me.  I dont think I've asked the same person more than one time.  I know you don't own at the ocean club and now I know that Dean doesnt either.  I am not sending them private messages because those are truly not private as you know.  You yourself have offered to share yours on a a previous post.  I believe that if you own at the ocean club your view is likely to be different from someone who does not.  That's it. I'm not suggesting that others don't post.  I was curious as why they took so much interest in it and that question has been answered.  As I've said before, I am glad that folks continue to post here.  It keeps the thread alive, its an important topic and the way it ends is also important.  Lately, when I post I think to myself before I hit the submit button, am I offending anyone?  I cant always know that for sure because there are so many different people in this world that can and will take offense to anything that is posted.  And since I am quoted so often, I can see offense is often taken.  There are also people that just want to respond to any and all posts.  So before I submit this response I want anyone reading it to know, I am not trying to offend anyone just working for a cause I truly believe in.  If you are offended I apologize in advance so dont swear at me when you read this.  Please don't tell me to stop asking questions because that is offensive, as you know we do have freedom of speech.  It really doesnt matter whether people agree with each other.  What's important is that we are keeping this thread alive.


----------



## tlwmkw

Lovearuba,

You say you believe in this cause- what do you believe will be accomplished as a result of a recall of the BOD?  This has been asked by many others, as well as myself, and neither you nor Marksue have really told us how you will change things.  The transparency issue seems to be resolving (if not yet fully resolved), the roof will be almost half paid for by Marriott, the only thing left will be reducing the maintenance fees and special assessments- is that your goal?  From the explanation given by Marriott it may be difficult to reduce the fees.

I think everyone who has offered advice on this topic feels that you won't get anywhere unless you know where you are going and what you wish to accomplish in getting there.  So far the only goal has been to unseat the BOD with no real goal beyond that- that may give you some satisfaction because you will feel that someone has paid for what was done to you (even though it is a volunteer who probably didn't cause this situation since it is the result of many years of planning) but it won't really do anything to solve the issues that you are upset about.  

Marksue and Luckybee claim to have information that will prove that Marriott/MVCI/the BOD has been up to no good, and that for legal reasons they cannot reveal this information- why is that?  Wouldn't it be better to use this information to get Marriott/MVCI/BOD to give you whatever it is that you want rather than keeping it secret?  As I said before this isn't a poker game- Luckybee says she has more experience in legal issues than most people on this bulletin board- if so she must know that there is no benefit to waiting for a lawsuit and trying to surprise MVCI with the mystery information- use it now and get what you want without getting expensive lawyers involved.

You seem to dodge these questions whenever anyone brings them up and then simply ask whether the poster is an owner or not. You say that they cannot understand how it feels to get a large bill from a resort unless they own there. This negates the value of the comments and that is why people get offended when you ask that.  More to the point- why not address the issues and answer the difficult questions?

We're all trying to help you and understand the situation and are giving advice and suggestions in a spirit of help-

tlwlmkw


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> ... And since I am quoted so often, I can see offense is often taken.



lovearuba, the one and only thing that you've posted that "offended" me, I questioned immediately.  All of the rest of your posts, even the ones which ask if someone owns at the Ocean Club, prove that you believe in your cause and want the issues to be resolved with the best possible outcome for owners - an MVCI resort which is maintained and managed jointly with the owners to an expected quality standard.  The reason I quote you so often isn't because your words offend, it's because your posts leave me with more questions than answers.



lovearuba said:


> ... Please don't tell me to stop asking questions because that is offensive, as you know we do have freedom of speech.  It really doesnt matter whether people agree with each other.



Couldn't these words be posted by anyone in this discussion, with the same meaning applied by folks on either side of the issues?  All of the questions are valid, it seems to me, and anyone can choose whether or not and how they want to answer.  It just seems to me that if this is truly a discussion of the issues, rather than a sounding board for owner-only grievances, there's no point in leaving unanswered questions.

Of course, if what you want is simply to have your vague unexplained owner grievances at the top of the list on this discussion board, then you should specifically state that.  Because if that's the case I think you'll lose your critics' contributions.  As has been said many times over, that's not our purpose for adding to this thread.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> ... I believe that if you own at the ocean club your view is likely to be different from someone who does not. ...



Several Aruba Ocean Club owners have posted to this thread that they do not agree with the opinions and actions of your group.  Do you consider their opinions any more or less relevant than those of your non-owner critics?


----------



## lovearuba

SueDonJ said:


> Several Aruba Ocean Club owners have posted to this thread that they do not agree with the opinions and actions of your group. Do you consider their opinions any more or less relevant than those of your non-owner critics?


 
I consider the opinion of ocean club owners regardless of their position with a little more weight than non-owners.  This applies to this thread.


----------



## ecwinch

tlwmkw said:


> As I said before this isn't a poker game- Luckybee says she has more experience in legal issues than most people on this bulletin board- if so she must know that there is no benefit to waiting for a lawsuit and trying to surprise MVCI with the mystery information- use it now and get what you want without getting expensive lawyers involved.



Oh come on. I see this happen all the time on TV. All those shows - Law and Order, Perry Mason, L.A. Law, et al.

What universe do you live in? Do you even watch TV? Do you OWN a TV?

I am worried that next you are going to tell me something bad about Santa Claus.


----------



## lovearuba

SueDonJ said:


> lovearuba, the one and only thing that you've posted that "offended" me, I questioned immediately. All of the rest of your posts, even the ones which ask if someone owns at the Ocean Club, prove that you believe in your cause and want the issues to be resolved with the best possible outcome for owners - an MVCI resort which is maintained and managed jointly with the owners to an expected quality standard. The reason I quote you so often isn't because your words offend, it's because your posts leave me with more questions than answers.
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't these words be posted by anyone in this discussion, with the same meaning applied by folks on either side of the issues? All of the questions are valid, it seems to me, and anyone can choose whether or not and how they want to answer. It just seems to me that if this is truly a discussion of the issues, rather than a sounding board for owner-only grievances, there's no point in leaving unanswered questions.
> 
> Of course, if what you want is simply to have your vague unexplained owner grievances at the top of the list on this discussion board, then you should specifically state that. Because if that's the case I think you'll lose your critics' contributions. As has been said many times over, that's not our purpose for adding to this thread.


 
Sue, the issues have been written to Marriott, nothing about them was vague, they were very specific.  I am not going to repost any of the issues or repost letters written to Marriott nor go back through their responses which you have already stated you feel are adequate. .   I am signing off for the day but am sure you will find time to leave additional posts.  I'm not on trial here and I'm not going to continue to respond to non-owner criticism.  For the owners of the ocean club, feel free to do what you feel is in your best interest.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> I consider the opinion of ocean club owners regardless of their position with a little more weight than non-owners.  This applies to this thread.



Because our opinions are objective, and based on the facts of the issue and are not colored by the emotion you felt when you got the bill.

I respect your right to have that opinion. If you want to discount mine accordingly that is your right also.

Likewise, I think you can see a pattern emerging whenever that question is asked of someone. Just as is the mood of the crowd.

Your fear of asking that message in private does not make sense to me, but that is your right also. I think you might be reading too much into the word "Private" in Private Message.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> Because our opinions are objective, and based on the facts of the issue and are not colored by the emotion you felt when you got the bill.




I continue to be amazed by the fact that there are those non owners here on this board who think this is just "about the bill". For me the bill has little to do with it ! Now back to real life...lol


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> I continue to be amazed by the fact that there are those non owners here on this board who think this is just "about the bill". For me the bill has little to do with it ! Now back to real life...lol



And how many posts have included the terms:

"would you feel the same way if you had to pay the ...."

or words to that affect. Yes, I am sure that this whole "crusade" is about due process, and having a representative board.


----------



## Dean

Luckybee said:


> I continue to be amazed by the fact that there are those non owners here on this board who think this is just "about the bill". For me the bill has little to do with it ! Now back to real life...lol


So this is an emotional fight and not a factual one?  If this is about being treated fairly, nothing going forward is likely to change anyone's mind that feels wronged.  IF that's the reason for this crusade, I'd think over 900 of those names would drop off the list.  And I don't think you can get back on the same page, much like ironing out a marriage when one has strayed.  IF I were in the situation and my main issue was I felt betrayed, I'd file legal action or split or both, most likely both.  I'd bet for most of those on the list it really is ONLY about the bill, at least for those on the list that are really on board at all.


----------



## MarionG

*Aruba Ocean Club Refurbishment Wallop*

I was in shock when I opened the additional bill due June1 for almost $500 for a one bedroom unit.  This came out of left field and was not mentioned in the letter explaining the reason for the dramatic increase in maintenance fees.  I know a woman who owns three weeks of a 2 bedroom, and her assessment was almost $4000!

I wrote to the general manager and to the board but have not received any response.  

Is it possible to go on strike and not pay?


----------



## Dean

sunflr1 said:


> I was in shock when I opened the additional bill due June1 for almost $500 for a one bedroom unit.  This came out of left field and was not mentioned in the letter explaining the reason for the dramatic increase in maintenance fees.  I know a woman who owns three weeks of a 2 bedroom, and her assessment was almost $4000!
> 
> I wrote to the general manager and to the board but have not received any response.
> 
> Is it possible to go on strike and not pay?


Sure, they will take it over and you will own nothing.  They may or may not report it to the credit agencies but likely will.  However, wasn't a 2 BR at the SC about $600 a year less than your HI resort?  I suspect that's one of the problems that the fees were artificially low.  Compared to other similar resorts (US, esp HI) and accounting for the island location, I'd expect them be about $1000-1200 for a 1 BR and $1400-1600 for a 2 BR going forward.


----------



## dioxide45

Dean said:


> Sure, they will take it over and you will own nothing.  They may or may not report it to the credit agencies but likely will.  However, wasn't a 2 BR at the SC about $600 a year less than your HI resort?  I suspect that's one of the problems that the fees were artificially low.  Compared to other similar resorts (US, esp HI) and accounting for the island location, I'd expect them be about $1000-1200 for a 1 BR and $1400-1600 for a 2 BR going forward.



I think I read in this thread that the new MF for OC are far higher than those at SC. How soon will we see a similar thread for the SC as I would suspect their MF are being held artificially low also.

Every year on our proxy at Grande Vista is a vote to not fully fund the reserve at the resort. I have voted against it each year, but it always passes. The board always suggests voting for the proposal. Wonder if something similar exists here?


----------



## timeos2

*A plan for diaster*



dioxide45 said:


> I think I read in this thread that the new MF for OC are far higher than those at SC. How soon will we see a similar thread for the SC as I would suspect their MF are being held artificially low also.
> 
> Every year on our proxy at Grande Vista is a vote to not fully fund the reserve at the resort. I have voted against it each year, but it always passes. The board always suggests voting for the proposal. Wonder if something similar exists here?



Although now allowed by FL law underfunding reserves is a recipe for future (large) special assessments that will most likely FAR exceed the annual amount needed if collected properly over the years. Plus it usually means the resort falls into disrepair with delayed maintenance. It is a very penny wise and dollar foolish path to follow but far too many resorts (especially those under Developer control and/or sales) travel it.


----------



## ecwinch

dioxide45 said:


> I think I read in this thread that the new MF for OC are far higher than those at SC. How soon will we see a similar thread for the SC as I would suspect their MF are being held artificially low also.



Anything is possible. 

I would think that the probability is lower for a number of reasons:

- SC is a high density development. Meaning more units sharing the expense load of shared/common resources. Just think of one expense factor - like landscaping for instance.
- SC has the benefit of modern engineering against wind/storm damage. One of the big factors in the OC assessment was damage from the hurricane. Due to the modern engineering at SC, it suffered far less damage

And refurbishment is already underway in the first tower of the SC. From the owners meeting I attended in Dec (NOTE: not an owner), that is completely from the reserves.

So in a certain respect the attribute that makes the OC most attractive - the low density - is also the factor that make m/f and ownership costs higher than the SC.


----------



## Dean

dioxide45 said:


> I think I read in this thread that the new MF for OC are far higher than those at SC. How soon will we see a similar thread for the SC as I would suspect their MF are being held artificially low also.
> 
> Every year on our proxy at Grande Vista is a vote to not fully fund the reserve at the resort. I have voted against it each year, but it always passes. The board always suggests voting for the proposal. Wonder if something similar exists here?


The issues I wrote about for another resort in Aruba were in part where the reserves had not been fully funded and the amount that was listed as the need was artificially low whether it be due to bad planning or purposeful is one of the questions.  A newer resort should be some lower early on.


----------



## Luckybee

Dean said:


> So this is an emotional fight and not a factual one?  If this is about being treated fairly, nothing going forward is likely to change anyone's mind that feels wronged.  IF that's the reason for this crusade, I'd think over 900 of those names would drop off the list.  And I don't think you can get back on the same page, much like ironing out a marriage when one has strayed.  IF I were in the situation and my main issue was I felt betrayed, I'd file legal action or split or both, most likely both.  I'd bet for most of those on the list it really is ONLY about the bill, at least for those on the list that are really on board at all.



Who said anything about it being emotional...there are some very solid factual reasons to be concerned about the manner in which the board "continues" to operate . Im sure for "some" the bill is the ONLY issue, but I think you are absolutely incorrect that it is for "most". 
I remind any owner that they should not get their info here, nothing against Tug, but, rather contact people off the board, including Mr. Cohen who for years has been the board member most responsive to the owners and a trusted source of information.


----------



## lovearuba

Luckybee said:


> I remind any owner that they should not get their info here, nothing against Tug, but, rather contact people off the board, including Mr. Cohen who for years has been the board member most responsive to the owners and a trusted source of information.


 
Great Point, updates are put here but I agree the best source for ocean club owners is by contacting Marksue and being included in updates that are sent directly to owners.


----------



## Dean

Luckybee said:


> Who said anything about it being emotional...there are some very solid factual reasons to be concerned about the manner in which the board "continues" to operate . Im sure for "some" the bill is the ONLY issue, but I think you are absolutely incorrect that it is for "most".
> I remind any owner that they should not get their info here, nothing against Tug, but, rather contact people off the board, including Mr. Cohen who for years has been the board member most responsive to the owners and a trusted source of information.


I don't see many choices other than it's the dollars (which you said it wasn't) or the emotions (which I'd lump "trust" into) involved but you can enlighten me if you like.  I'm open for real information.


----------



## SueDonJ

sunflr1 said:


> I was in shock when I opened the additional bill due June1 for almost $500 for a one bedroom unit.  This came out of left field and was not mentioned in the letter explaining the reason for the dramatic increase in maintenance fees.  I know a woman who owns three weeks of a 2 bedroom, and her assessment was almost $4000!
> 
> I wrote to the general manager and to the board but have not received any response.
> 
> Is it possible to go on strike and not pay?



How could it be a surprise to any owner?  The Dec, 2008 Letter from the Board President and the Mar, 2009 Letter from the BOD both mentioned the increased maintenance fees as well as the special assessment which would be split into two payments, 2009 and 2010.  Also, the 2009 Operating Budget includes a letter from the BOD Treasurer detailing all of the fee increases including the special assessment.  All of those communications were mailed to owners and can be found in the Owners section of Aruba Ocean Club's page on my-vacationclub.com - there's no surprise at all.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> Who said anything about it being emotional...there are some very solid factual reasons to be concerned about the manner in which the board "continues" to operate . Im sure for "some" the bill is the ONLY issue, but I think you are absolutely incorrect that it is for "most".
> I remind any owner that they should not get their info here, nothing against Tug, but, rather contact people off the board, including Mr. Cohen who for years has been the board member most responsive to the owners and a trusted source of information.



I'm confused again.  Have the Annual Meeting/BOD elections taken place and Allan's been replaced already, or has he resigned prior to the election, or is he still sitting on the board while working with your group?

Because the rallying cry for "transparency" is due to Marriott supposedly blocking communication between the BOD and the owners except for what Marriott approves, isn't it?  The BOD information on my-vacationclub.com indicates that Allan Cohen is still on the board through 2009, and here you say that Mr. Cohen is communicating with your group.  That seems contradictory to your group assertion that there is no transparency.

I remind any owner that in addition to the important information being distributed by the owners who are dissatisfied with recent issues at your resort, you may want to also read this entire thread for the contrasting opinions of your fellow Aruba Ocean Club owners and other resort owners who do not agree with the group's perspective.  Looking at things from all sides will enable you to reach your own informed opinion/conclusion.


----------



## lovearuba

*Most read boards*

Hi
I came across these statistics and thought they were interesting.

http://boardreader.com/fp/TUG_Bulletin_Board_17965/Marriott_54526.html


----------



## marksue

*AOC BOD meeting - Marriott prevents owners from thier wishes*

I will have a more complete recap of the board meeting in the next day or so.  But to all owners of all Marriott timeshare, beware.  Marriott is preventing the owner’s desires from being acted upon.  For all the years Marriott has never used their votes as they have always said they would not stand in the way of the owners decisions.  In fact in a phone call with Stephan Weisz  the President of MVCI, he said if you do not like your board get rid of them.  Well the owners had voted and they had soundly defeated Frank Knox, which until for the first time Marriott casted their B votes and voted for Frank.

What is going on?  Why is Marriott preventing the owner’s wishes from going through?  What is being held back from the owners?  Marriott would not even let the board run the meeting. They brought in a parliamentarian person to run the meeting.  Why is Marriott taking over the owner’s property?  Troy and Dirk basically took over the meeting from the owners.

I will have the vote counts in a follow up post, but Frank got about 400 votes prior to Marriott's votes.  He was in 3rd place and should not be on the board.  Frank, you do not deserve to be on the board and should resign immediately, before we the owners vote you off.  

From what I have heard there is more anger now towards the board and Marriott based on these actions.


----------



## TJCNewYork

lovearuba said:


> Hi
> I came across these statistics and thought they were interesting.
> 
> http://boardreader.com/fp/TUG_Bulletin_Board_17965/Marriott_54526.html



Wow. Interesting stats, thanks for posting.


----------



## tlwmkw

Marksue,

Can you clarify your post- what are B shares?  Did MVCI vote using proxys that they had received or do they have some extra votes that are not tied to timeshare weeks?  If they voted against the will of the owners then that is a bad sign- that would be an issue with MVCI and not the board.  This would be a bad precedent for all MVCI timeshares.  Is Frank Knox an MVCI employee?  Why are you so against him?

Thanks,  tlwmkw


----------



## MarionG

Dean said:


> Sure, they will take it over and you will own nothing.  They may or may not report it to the credit agencies but likely will.  However, wasn't a 2 BR at the SC about $600 a year less than your HI resort?  I suspect that's one of the problems that the fees were artificially low.  Compared to other similar resorts (US, esp HI) and accounting for the island location, I'd expect them be about $1000-1200 for a 1 BR and $1400-1600 for a 2 BR going forward.




I don't know about the Surf Club.  I bought the one bedroom at Ocean Club in 1999 and had been paying $5-600 a year until last year when they sent the information about the refurbishment.  They maintained at the time that the increase would be about $400 additional every year.  In 2008 it was over $1100 and this year it was over $1200.  There was no mention of an additional bill that would be due in June.  My Hawaii property is about $1400 a year for a two bedroom. I called Marriott (again) and was told that if I didn't pay I couldn't use the property for 2010 and would not be able to use my Marriott rewards points.  I'm really disgusted with the system and am thinking seriously of selling -- but I doubt that there is much of a market.


----------



## marksue

MVCI owns B shares in all timeshares.  These represent thier interests in the timeshare units.

Frank Knox is the one who was instrumental with Marriott in forcing out Allan Cohen and then being appointed president.  He did this the day before last years owners meeting and then did not show up for the meeting.  Frank is the one who started the lack of transparency to owners. Frank is the one who talked about the state of the building and all of the structural reports, yet refuses to release any of the reports backing up his telling owners how good the building is.  Frank is the one who has refused to communicate with owners as past presidents have.  Frank is not wanted by the owners, but Marriott votes him in. You have to wonder why all of a sudden MArriott uses thier votes and votes against the wishes of the majority of the owners. (something they have never done and out right stated would never do).


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> Hi
> I came across these statistics and thought they were interesting.
> 
> http://boardreader.com/fp/TUG_Bulletin_Board_17965/Marriott_54526.html



Excellent! For probably the first and only time ever, I am in the Top Three! Can't say I'm surprised - I'm bored out of my mind waiting for vacation and reading/writing about Hilton Head, the issues at Aruba Ocean Club, and fun stuff in The Lounge is way more interesting than housework.  You can vacuum only so much.

Where is my prize?


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> I will have a more complete recap of the board meeting in the next day or so.  But to all owners of all Marriott timeshare, beware.  Marriott is preventing the owner’s desires from being acted upon.  For all the years Marriott has never used their votes as they have always said they would not stand in the way of the owners decisions.  In fact in a phone call with Stephan Weisz  the President of MVCI, he said if you do not like your board get rid of them.  Well the owners had voted and they had soundly defeated Frank Knox, which until for the first time Marriott casted their B votes and voted for Frank.
> 
> What is going on?  Why is Marriott preventing the owner’s wishes from going through?  What is being held back from the owners?  Marriott would not even let the board run the meeting. They brought in a parliamentarian person to run the meeting.  Why is Marriott taking over the owner’s property?  Troy and Dirk basically took over the meeting from the owners.
> 
> I will have the vote counts in a follow up post, but Frank got about 400 votes prior to Marriott's votes.  He was in 3rd place and should not be on the board.  Frank, you do not deserve to be on the board and should resign immediately, before we the owners vote you off.
> 
> From what I have heard there is more anger now towards the board and Marriott based on these actions.





marksue said:


> MVCI owns B shares in all timeshares.  These represent thier interests in the timeshare units.
> 
> Frank Knox is the one who was instrumental with Marriott in forcing out Allan Cohen and then being appointed president.  He did this the day before last years owners meeting and then did not show up for the meeting.  Frank is the one who started the lack of transparency to owners. Frank is the one who talked about the state of the building and all of the structural reports, yet refuses to release any of the reports backing up his telling owners how good the building is.  Frank is the one who has refused to communicate with owners as past presidents have.  Frank is not wanted by the owners, but Marriott votes him in. You have to wonder why all of a sudden MArriott uses thier votes and votes against the wishes of the majority of the owners. (something they have never done and out right stated would never do).



This is like trying to watch Fox News - it's all sensationalism and biased opinion with barely any substantiated facts.  I'd like to read another Ocean Club owner's account of the opposing view.


----------



## marksue

You have the facts of the meeting.  Of course you dont see them as facts because you do not believe in what is taking place. As soon as I have all the numbers they will be posted as well. The information about Frank has been posted previously and supported.


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> You have the facts of the meeting.  Of course you dont see them as facts because you do not believe in what is taking place. As soon as I have all the numbers they will be posted as well. The information about Frank has been posted previously and supported.



No, I have your biased version of the facts minus the opposing view.  There always is one, as has been demonstrated over and over again in this thread by other Ocean Club owners who have questioned or disagreed with the things you've written.

I also don't know the reasons behind or legality of the actions that Marriott/MVCI or your BOD have taken.  Neither do you, judging by the questions you're asking.  Now you are certainly entitled to ask them, but I'll reserve my opinion about whether or not Marriott/MVCI or your BOD are acting inappropriately until I know the answers.  In other words, there may be a possibility that the conclusion you're reaching is not entirely correct.


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> ... you do not believe in what is taking place ...



Marksue, it's way too easy for you to dismiss opposing viewpoints by projecting this excuse.  You have no way of knowing exactly what I believe, which is why I'm going to be very clear here now.  My opinion is based on all of the posts on this thread, the documents under the Owner section of Aruba Ocean Club's page on my-vacationclub.com, and the information contained in my ownership documents that is not resort-specific but pertains to MVCI as a whole.

I believe that the recent increases in maintenance fees and the 2-year special assessment fees imposed on Aruba Ocean Club owners, although burdensome and unwelcome, are necessary if the resort is to be held to the quality standard that is expected.

I believe that the explanations offered by Marriott/MVCI/the BOD for those fee increases, as well as for the other actions (BOD email address, Allan Cohen's term limit, no warranty relief, etc.) which generated complaints in this thread, are adequate.

I believe, Marksue, that you realized or were advised by qualified attorneys several months ago that based on the AOC bylaws and contractual documents, Marriott/MVCI/your BOD would prevail in the civil suit action that you proposed in your first post here.

I believe that you hoped that Marriott/MVCI/your BOD could be swayed by an outpouring of negative publicity or owner dissatisfaction, which is why you offer information to AOC owners through emails, online communities such as this one and onsite canvassing.  I believe that you deliberately use a biased sensationalized style in your communications because you know that the owners are already upset with Marriott/MVCI/your BOD over the increased fees, and you know that particular style will further inflame emotions.

I believe that you have received here level-headed disagreement and criticism, as well as suggestions to keep on point and stick to the facts, from fellow AOC owners and non-owners.  I believe that you deliberately ignore such posts, or use the cloak-and-dagger, supersecret, can't-divulge-that nonsense to excuse them, because you know that by acknowledging and/or responding to their content, you will also be acknowledging the possibility that your opinion is not the only correct one.

I believe that you latched onto the only option available to you - unseating the members of the BOD - so that you and the other members of your group could walk away from this without conceding everything to Marriott/MVCI/your BOD.  What I still don't understand is why you didn't research and follow the rules/laws pertaining to submission of a petition to your BOD, because as much as the effort could have been a success, your unqualified submission sabotaged it.

Without a doubt, I believe that this post can be dismissed as a biased, uninformed, unqualified opinion.  I agree.  It is.  But it's no more biased, uninformed or unqualified than any of your posts, Marksue, and it is entirely as plausible as any of yours.


----------



## Luckybee

Marksue...do yourself a favour and the rest of the owners..dont allow yourself to get baited into an arguement with non owners....deal with the issues at hand and stay the course. There are others who for whatever reason have their opinion, and im sure in some cases their own agenda. Obviously you should respond to "owners" concern. Just keep posting what happens as you have, and try and ignore the rhetoric. I think we'd all be better off for it


----------



## Eric

Once again you make it sound like non-owners don't know what they are talking about. Baiting into an argument ? Please.... there are many non-owners and owners who applaud Mark's intention but think his methods are less than effective. After all, Mark is a person who created an alias to make it sounds like he agreed with his own cause. Thats pretty pathetic 





Luckybee said:


> Marksue...do yourself a favour and the rest of the owners..dont allow yourself to get baited into an arguement with non owners....deal with the issues at hand and stay the course. There are others who for whatever reason have their opinion, and im sure in some cases their own agenda. Obviously you should respond to "owners" concern. Just keep posting what happens as you have, and try and ignore the rhetoric. I think we'd all be better off for it


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> Marksue...do yourself a favour and the rest of the owners..dont allow yourself to get baited into an arguement with non owners....deal with the issues at hand and stay the course. There are others who for whatever reason have their opinion, and im sure in some cases their own agenda. Obviously you should respond to "owners" concern. Just keep posting what happens as you have, and try and ignore the rhetoric. I think we'd all be better off for it



You're so contentious.  I'm not looking for an argument, but neither am I required to watch this debacle unfold without commenting.  If you don't want to see the comments, take your disucssion private.  I've said over and over again that despite my opinion of what's transpired at AOC, you folks who feel wronged should be able to take a good hard look at Marksue's failed efforts and reach the sane conclusion that if you are to have any success, you need a qualified legal representation.  I have no idea if any level of success is a possibility, but I sure do recognize that your effort has no chance if you continue on as you're doing.


----------



## SueDonJ

Eric said:


> Once again you make it sound like non-owners don't know what they are talking about. Baiting into an argument ? Please.... there are many non-owners and owners who applaud Mark's intention but think his methods are less than effective. After all, Mark is a person who created an alias to make it sounds like he agreed with his own cause. Thats pretty pathetic



That's a good point; I forgot that one.  From now on we should ask for an IP address verification of any new posters who agree with Marksue's group.  That will balance the "are you an owner?" question posed to every new opposing poster, won't it?


----------



## Luckybee

Fortunately for me...I follow my own advice...have a nice day all


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> Fortunately for me...I follow my own advice...have a nice day all



Do you?  It doesn't appear you were able to ignore "the rhetoric."


----------



## marksue

Just to set the record straight since Eric likes to make up stories without the facts.  I never created an alias.  Yes the name was created and msg sent from my IP address but it was a friend of mine who owns at the Ocean Club and he was at my home.  I never felt I needed to justify anything, but I am not taking the agenda we have off target based on nonsense.


----------



## Eric

So he actually typed what you said instead of you typing it. Got it.... 
For the record, I wa never shooting for credibility where as you were and lost it a long time ago 



marksue said:


> Just to set the record straight since Eric likes to make up stories without the facts.  I never created an alias.  Yes the name was created and msg sent from my IP address but it was a friend of mine who owns at the Ocean Club and he was at my home.  I never felt I needed to justify anything, but I am not taking the agenda we have off target based on nonsense.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Positive Identification.*




SueDonJ said:


> From now on we should ask for an IP address verification of any new posters who agree with Marksue's group.


Also a thumbprint & a retinal scan & SSAN & photo ID & passport. 

Can't be too careful. 

_Full Disclosure*:*_  I am not an owner.  Plus, I've semi- lost track of the full cast of characters in this discussion topic, so I'm not endorsing or opposing anybody's causes.  From what I've been able to gather from following as much of this discussion as I am able to understand, however, I'd support settling with Marriott over sharing the roof repair costs, agreeing to accept ½ a loaf sooner rather than face lengthy (& costly) court proceedings followed by an uncertain outcome later.  Except for the lawyers, life is too short to get all wrapped around the axle in court cases.  For the lawyers, that's all in a day's work.  For everybody else, it's too much like _Jarndyce v. Jarndyce_.  I mean, would I rather be _right_ or would I rather be _happy_ ?

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


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> Just to set the record straight since Eric likes to make up stories without the facts.  I never created an alias.  Yes the name was created and msg sent from my IP address but it was a friend of mine who owns at the Ocean Club and he was at my home.  I never felt I needed to justify anything, but I am not taking the agenda we have off target based on nonsense.



But isn't that what you just did, go off target I mean, by ignoring my post commenting on several issues that are pertinent to your agenda while instead responding to Eric's subsequent off-agenda post?

Oh, and thanks for your explanation.  It certainly sounds plausible.


----------



## modoaruba

marksue said:


> Just to set the record straight since Eric likes to make up stories without the facts.  I never created an alias.  Yes the name was created and msg sent from my IP address but it was a friend of mine who owns at the Ocean Club and he was at my home.  I never felt I needed to justify anything, but I am not taking the agenda we have off target based on nonsense.



Hey marksue,
You should not need to justify yourself.
This board has gotten out of hand with this back and forth BS.
Like was mentioned before, stay your course,stick to the issues and don't get baited by the BS.
If you fall into this abyss we all fail.
What ever happens,you tried your best for the cause you pursue.

I just cannot believe some of the posts are actually serious.
Some major attitude fixing is due if so.

Might as well watch Judge Judy or some other such nonsense.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*You Typed A Mouthful.*




modoaruba said:


> I just cannot believe some of the posts are actually serious.


You got that right. 

For instance, just about all my TUG-BBS entries are strictly for fun. 

If I wanted a _serious_ web site, I'd go with some boring URL & stay off TUG-BBS. 

Is this a great country or what ? 

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


----------



## Eric

back and forth, what does that remind me of ? Oh yeah, now I remember, opinions on any given subject on the internet. yeah, who wants that... 



modoaruba said:


> Hey marksue,
> You should not need to justify yourself.
> This board has gotten out of hand with this back and forth BS.
> Like was mentioned before, stay your course,stick to the issues and don't get baited by the BS.
> If you fall into this abyss we all fail.
> What ever happens,you tried your best for the cause you pursue.
> 
> I just cannot believe some of the posts are actually serious.
> Some major attitude fixing is due if so.
> 
> Might as well watch Judge Judy or some other such nonsense.


----------



## vincenzi

modoaruba said:


> I just cannot believe some of the posts are actually serious.
> Some major attitude fixing is due if so.



Some of the posts have been very mean spirited.  

Away We Go, I love your posts.  They make me smile.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> ... What ever happens,you tried your best for the cause you pursue.



There's been no doubt from the very beginning that Marksue believes in the cause he's pursuing and that he's acted with the best of intentions for all AOC owners, including those who disagree with his cause.  Throughout this thread there have been many statements made by folks on both sides saying the same thing.

No one can say with any certainty, though, that Marksue's best efforts would be equal to the efforts that a qualified attorney would submit, which means that there is a possibility the cause could be better served than it is.  And I don't mean to intend anything argumentative, or attitude-laden or insulting by writing this.  Of all the things that I question in this thread, I am still most puzzled by the fact that members of this group who feel so strongly that they've been wronged, have not retained qualified legal representation in order to make the very best of their bad situation.  It's mind-boggling, truly.


----------



## qlaval

marksue said:


> I will have a more complete recap of the board meeting in the next day or so.  But to all owners of all Marriott timeshare, beware.  Marriott is preventing the owner’s desires from being acted upon.  For all the years Marriott has never used their votes as they have always said they would not stand in the way of the owners decisions.  In fact in a phone call with Stephan Weisz  the President of MVCI, he said if you do not like your board get rid of them.  Well the owners had voted and they had soundly defeated Frank Knox, which until for the first time Marriott casted their B votes and voted for Frank.
> 
> What is going on?  Why is Marriott preventing the owner’s wishes from going through?  What is being held back from the owners?  Marriott would not even let the board run the meeting. They brought in a parliamentarian person to run the meeting.  Why is Marriott taking over the owner’s property?  Troy and Dirk basically took over the meeting from the owners.
> 
> I will have the vote counts in a follow up post, but Frank got about 400 votes prior to Marriott's votes.  He was in 3rd place and should not be on the board.  Frank, you do not deserve to be on the board and should resign immediately, before we the owners vote you off.
> 
> From what I have heard there is more anger now towards the board and Marriott based on these actions.



It seems that WE (the OC Owners) can be the owners of OUR resort only if we don't threaten Marriott economics and/or plans.
Some will find that normal, others like me will find it unethical....

Let's just hope that some day we will be able to act like owners in our own house.


----------



## ecwinch

qlaval said:


> It seems that WE (the OC Owners) can be the owners of OUR resort only if we don't threaten Marriott economics and/or plans.
> Some will find that normal, others like me will find it unethical....
> 
> Let's just hope that some day we will be able to act like owners in our own house.



Yes, it is an implied contract that you can remain a MARRIOTT resort if you do not threaten the corporation whose name is on the door. I do not know why this would be viewed as unethical.

If it was the Qlaval Ocean Club, I really doubt that you would continue to affiliate with the resort if the owners accused you of 10% of rhetoric that MVCI has been accused of here.


----------



## marksue

Susan,

In the beginning we tried to do this without legal representation in an effort resolve this issue in a professional manner.  With Marriott's lack of response and underhanded actions, as occurred at the board meeting, we have now retained legal representation both in Aruba and the US. The attorneys are doing the work on a contingency basis as there are multiple actions under way.  There are multiple tracks taking place now and as I am permitted to share what is occurring I will post it.  As papers are served and I am given the ok I will share what we are doing.  But since Marriott does monitor this board I will not share what is planned until it is executed.


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> I will have a more complete recap of the board meeting in the next day or so.  But to all owners of all Marriott timeshare, beware.  Marriott is preventing the owner’s desires from being acted upon.  For all the years Marriott has never used their votes as they have always said they would not stand in the way of the owners decisions.  In fact in a phone call with Stephan Weisz  the President of MVCI, he said if you do not like your board get rid of them.  Well the owners had voted and they had soundly defeated Frank Knox, which until for the first time Marriott casted their B votes and voted for Frank.
> 
> What is going on?  Why is Marriott preventing the owner’s wishes from going through?  What is being held back from the owners?  Marriott would not even let the board run the meeting. They brought in a parliamentarian person to run the meeting.  Why is Marriott taking over the owner’s property?  Troy and Dirk basically took over the meeting from the owners.
> 
> I will have the vote counts in a follow up post, but Frank got about 400 votes prior to Marriott's votes.  He was in 3rd place and should not be on the board.  Frank, you do not deserve to be on the board and should resign immediately, before we the owners vote you off.
> 
> From what I have heard there is more anger now towards the board and Marriott based on these actions.


I'm not sure what B shares are.  I'm assuming Marriott has the right to vote as an owner for the units they own which I assume would include unsold weeks used for maint, any other unsold weeks of which I doubt there are many, and any foreclosed weeks. That should be what, maybe 1000 votes or so (just a guess) at a smaller sold out resort as I assume the OC is.  That's roughly the same number as are on the list we've been discussing.  As I noted previously, I haven't seen the Bylaws and articles of incorporation of the OC or SC, but I wonder what the min voting numbers are, if any.  At some Caribbean resorts there is a min % required to vote for round 1 and if that min is not reached, you have to have another BOD meeting.  IMO, the fact they don't normally vote them is not especially relevant as they have a vested interest in the outcome.  In their eyes I'm sure they don't want to turn over control to a group of Rogue Owners.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> But since Marriott does monitor this board I will not share what is planned until it is executed.



Now I have this visual of Bill Marriott up at 3:00 am, in his bathrobe. Camera fades back and we see he is in his bedroom, room is dark except for the light of his laptop. In the background we see his bed, with his wife sound asleep. 

Camera switches to a close-up, illuminated by the off-light of his LCD. A scowl comes over his face and you hear him muttering, "what are those pesky OC owners up to now". Fade to black


----------



## lovearuba

*Thanks*



marksue said:


> Susan,
> 
> In the beginning we tried to do this without legal representation in an effort resolve this issue in a professional manner. With Marriott's lack of response and underhanded actions, as occurred at the board meeting, we have now retained legal representation both in Aruba and the US. The attorneys are doing the work on a contingency basis as there are multiple actions under way. There are multiple tracks taking place now and as I am permitted to share what is occurring I will post it. As papers are served and I am given the ok I will share what we are doing. But since Marriott does monitor this board I will not share what is planned until it is executed.


 
I appreciate all of your efforts, they mean a lot to me and my initial thoughts were that we should have started with legal actions. I was pursuaded by others that that was not fair to Marriott and that we should first give the board a chance to respond to our concerns.  That track didnt work so you followed the rules and got the necessary owners to sign a letter to show the numbers you needed, that didnt work.  Owners wrote to Marriotts lead person, that didnt work.  An owner pleaded with Mr. Marriott at the Stockholders meeting, that did not appear to work.  So it sounds like legal action is the only recourse.  Thanks again.  Bye for now.


----------



## marksue

Eric,

Now that is a scary visual .


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> I appreciate all of your efforts, they mean a lot to me and my initial thoughts were that we should have started with legal actions. I was pursuaded by others that that was not fair to Marriott and that we should first give the board a chance to respond to our concerns.  That track didnt work so you followed the rules and got the necessary owners to *sign a letter* to show the numbers you needed, that didnt work.  Owners wrote to Marriotts lead person, that didnt work.  An owner pleaded with Mr. Marriott at the Stockholders meeting, that did not appear to work.  So it sounds like legal action is the only recourse.  Thanks again.  Bye for now.



Skipping over one tiny part of the requirements. And the issue of informed consent.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> Skipping over one tiny part of the requirements. And the issue of informed consent.



do you alphabetize or place your items in the cupboard in size order?


----------



## marksue

*Aruba Annual Meeting (May 15, 2009) update from Allan Cohen*

May 19, 2009 

Dear Aruba Ocean Club Owners

Having just returned from the 2008 Aruba Ocean Annual Meeting - I am still in a state of disbelief at what was done by Marriott.   Unfortunately, my last meeting as a Board member leaves me in shock and utter disgust at Marriott's total lack of respect for Aruba Ocean Club Owners.   But as many owners have said to me - I was too trusting.  

The Annual Meeting was not like anything I have ever seen before and was the first one that Marriott's MVCI division took complete control of.  They hired at their expense a parliamentarian (one of only 35 in the nation) to run most of the meeting, they prepared two pages of rules, a proxy review staff, governance staff, security and did away with the secret ballot process for the proxies. etc.  I would say that MVCI had more staff on hand then Owners in attendance.   I ask you:  Why would Marriott spend thousand's of dollars in sending staff and consultants to Aruba for an Owners Annual meeting?    

For the Board of Directors - a total of 6268 votes were cast.  Marriott had at total of 1730 votes (1500 B share votes and 230 shares - ( they said the they had bought back 115 weeks (2 votes per week) thus Marriott had a  total of 1730 votes.)  

According to my notes the results from the election for the two vacancies on the Board were as follows:  (I called and Marriott will not release their vote count information to me at this time)

Andrew Bury     1034
Anthony Lifrieri  3116
Frank Knox        2112
Frederick O'Toole    6

For the first time in the history of the Aruba Ocean Club - Marriott MVCI's division headed by Dirk Schavemaker, and Troy Asche cast votes for the A Owner members for election.  For the past 9 years, I and Owners have been told by MVCI President Steve Weisz and other Marriott executives that Marriott does not vote in an Board election for Owners (A members), because they feel that the Owners should have their say and Marriott would not want to influence the election of Owner Members.  Well, apparently Marriott no longer feels this way!

What I witnessed on Friday was MVCI staff under the watchful eye of (MI) Marriott Internationals Resort General Manager, Rick Zeolla's was a total disregard for the Owners wishes as reflected in the Owner votes.  They cast their Marriott proxies for Frank Knox, the current President who would have been soundly defeated but for the Marriott votes.. 

Even through the Board and Marriott had nominated the other three candidates their casting of their votes changed the outcome of the election.  

This total disregard for the Owners wishes is a prime example of their control of all actions of this Board.  What are they afraid of?  

All my motions to insure transparency for Owners, to insure that Owners have a say in any attempted Surf Club integration, as well as getting the final reports on the roof, structural and environmental issues that concern Owners, were either defeated by the Boards/MVCI or called "out of order" by Marriott's hired Parliamentarian.  

Frank Knox admitted that the reports were not final and that he has decided to use Marriott consultants (structural contractors etc.) rather than follow up with our own hired independent structural engineers who had visited the site and made recommendations. 

Remember, that all Owners had received an update last month from the Board Officers stating that everything is fine, well how could they make such a statement when the final report does not exist.

I strongly believe based on the facts as we know them that until the final report is complete and all our consultant's concerns are openly addressed, we should not accept Marriott's reports as fact.  We are not being told what all these repairs are costing us and we are now investing over $14 million in refurbishment.  

As a fellow Owner, I urge that you continue to stay alert, this is your property and it is costing you dearly. Your recent assessment and maintenance bill's are just an example of how Marriott has turned a wonderful vacation ownership experience into a disaster.   

We should not let this Board and Marriott disregard the wishes of the Owners.  Frank Knox should resign immediately and a call for a fair Owner election not controlled by Marriott should take place.     

Prior to this meeting I spoke at the Marriott International Annual Meeting (*see below)  in Washington and addressed my concern to Arne Sorenson -  Arne.Sorenson@marriott.com the new Marriott President.  No response to date .  Since he is new on the job, I suggest that you write to him on how you feel about MVCI's actions and the issues at the Aruba Ocean Club.

I urge that you stay in contact with the Concerned Owners group thru me at C20854@aol.com or Mark at live4sonnj@aol.com.  Many Owners are devoting their own time and resources to try to correct the injustices that are occurring at the hands of MVCI.  

The facts continue to be clear - MVCI never disclosed the condition of our building prior to marketing and selling it.  We as Owners have been paying the price for this with all our repairs/maintenance costs and all attempts to get Marriott International to intervene and do what is right and equitable have failed.   

I want to thank the Owners of the over 1,000 weeks who listed me on their proxies. 
I will keep providing you with current and reliable information as long as you want. 
Please stay in touch.

 Allan  

Allan S. Cohen


PS: I just received news that John Moyer (5 week owner) who attended the Annual meeting with me on Friday had a major stroke yesterday.  During our visit and upon his return,John could not stop telling me how seething he was on what he witnessed by Marriott at the Annual Meeting.  He had met with Dirk and Troy for hours in January to discuss issues and had been hopeful they would listen to the Owners.  I am sending all our prayers to John.      
==================================================================== 
*This is the statement I gave at Marriott corporate annual meeting May 1, 2009. I was hopeful since both Mr Marriott and Mr Sorenson were attentive and polite and thanked me for my comments, but now after Fridays Annual meeting in Aruba - it seems that they do not care.  We will see!   

MR. MARRIOTT AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD,  I AM ALLAN COHEN  A SHAREHOLDER, CURRENT BOARD MEMBER AND FORMER PRESIDENT OF MARRIOTT'S ARUBA OCEAN CLUB,   AS WELL AS A MUTIPLE OWNER OF THREE DIFFERENT VACATION CLUB RESORTS AND A NEIGHBOR IN POTOMAC 

I HAVE BEEN A LOYAL MARRIOTT SUPPORTER - AND BELIEVE IN THE MARRIOTT BRAND, BUT I AM CONCERNED OVER -

YOUR RECENT ANNOUNCED DECREASE OF OVER 30% IN REVENUE FROM YOUR TIMESHARE DIVISION 

I DO NOT FEEL THAT THIS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ECONOMY ALONE BUT ALSO  BECAUSE OF SERIOUS OWNER CONCERNS AND LACK OF FAITH BY SOME IN THE MARRIOTT BRAND NAME 

WHAT BEGAN AS A SMALL GROUP OF UNHAPPY OWNERS IN ARUBA 8 MONTHS AGO HAS GROWN TO OVER 1000 OF THE 9,000 OWNERS.  ADDING THEIR FAMILIES, FRIENDS, AND BUSINESS ASSOCIATES THIS NUMBER CONTINUES TO GROW. 

IN ADDITION WITH OVER 400,000 TIMESHARE OWNERS WORLDWIDE,  A THREAT OF A BRAND BOYCOTT BY SOME AS WELL AS A  NEGATIVE MARRIOTT BLOG VIEWED OVER 48,000 TIMES SINCE OCT. 2008 WITH OVER 900 POSTINGS, WHICH YOUR MVCI STAFF MONITOR - SHOULD GIVE THIS BOARD AND EVERY SHAREHOLDER REASON FOR CONCERN. 

ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE ISSUES AT THE ARUBA OCEAN CLUB ARE UNIQUE - I HAVE  BEEN IN TOUCH WITH SOME OF THE OTHER 50 TIMESHARE BOARDS AND THEY SEE SOME CONCERNS AMONG THEIR OWNERS OVER MARRIOTT RELATED ISSUES.  

WE ALL  PURCHASED BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATION THAT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY REPRESENT - THE MARRIOTT NAME WAS THE STIMULUS OFFERING OWNERS AND GUESTS PEACE OF MIND AND AN UNBLEMISHED REPUTATION.

I AM CONCERNED THAT UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION NOW - THE DISSENSION WILL ONLY CONTINUE. 

I URGE YOU TO SET UP AN OWNER ADVOCACY OFFICE TO TAKE A FRESH AND INDEPENDENT LOOK AND DEAL WITH THE UNRESOLVED ISSUES THAT CONTINUE FACING VACATION CLUB OWNERS.  

I WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT OWNERS ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT, BUT WE MUST WORK TOGETHER IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER.   WE MUST BUILD BACK THE  TRUST IN THE MARRIOTT NAME -

I AM CONFIDENT THAT WITH YOUR AND MR. SORENSON'S LEADERSHIP, WE CAN BRING BACK THE LOYALTY OF OUR TIMESHARE OWNERS.     WE NEED NOT BE ADVERSARIAL.    

I TRULY BELIEVE THAT IF WE CAN WORK TOGETHER THE MARRIOTT BRAND WILL BECOME EVEN STRONGER 

I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU   - THANK YOU  ALLAN COHEN

=================================================================


----------



## modoaruba

Allan,

I myself have found it a pleasure in our communications in the past.
The relationship you had as the president of the board with the owners was exemplatory.
That type of trait is a gift.
Marriott lost a great asset.
Now there is a feeling of disconnect with the Corporation and many owners.
Very sad.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> I DO NOT FEEL THAT THIS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ECONOMY ALONE BUT ALSO  BECAUSE OF SERIOUS OWNER CONCERNS AND LACK OF FAITH BY SOME IN THE MARRIOTT BRAND NAME
> 
> WHAT BEGAN AS A SMALL GROUP OF UNHAPPY OWNERS IN ARUBA 8 MONTHS AGO HAS GROWN TO OVER 1000 OF THE 9,000 OWNERS.  ADDING THEIR FAMILIES, FRIENDS, AND BUSINESS ASSOCIATES THIS NUMBER CONTINUES TO GROW.
> 
> *IN ADDITION WITH OVER 400,000 TIMESHARE OWNERS WORLDWIDE,  A THREAT OF A BRAND BOYCOTT BY SOME AS WELL AS A  NEGATIVE MARRIOTT BLOG VIEWED OVER 48,000 TIMES SINCE OCT. 2008 WITH OVER 900 POSTINGS, WHICH YOUR MVCI STAFF MONITOR - SHOULD GIVE THIS BOARD AND EVERY SHAREHOLDER REASON FOR CONCERN. *
> 
> ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE ISSUES AT THE ARUBA OCEAN CLUB ARE UNIQUE - I HAVE  BEEN IN TOUCH WITH SOME OF THE OTHER 50 TIMESHARE BOARDS AND THEY SEE SOME CONCERNS AMONG THEIR OWNERS OVER MARRIOTT RELATED ISSUES.



Bingo!!!

I think we now know why this drama is being played out on our humble stage.

I like how Allan utilizes the inference that this has now spread to other non-AOC Marriott owners. Nice.

It is like you guys have literally adopted the "disgruntled customer out in front of the store" strategy.

How fortunate that Marksue started this thread back in Oct and it has got all this traffic. I wonder if Allan knows how many of those posts are from NON-OWNERS? Regardless - nicely played. Kudos to whoever came up with that strategy.

And the threat of a brand boycott? Wow, where is that in this thread? I did not know that we were debating a brand boycott.


----------



## Eric

Sounds like the sky is falling to me. Until they can prove Marriott hid information about the roof, they are just spinning their wheels. With all the threats etc. did anyone think Marriott wouldn't take a CYA approach at the meeting ? When are there going to be any facts presented instead od speculation 





ecwinch said:


> Bingo!!!
> 
> I think we now know why this drama is being played out on our stage.
> 
> I like how Allan utilizes the inference that this will now spread to other non-AOC Marriott owners. Nice.
> 
> It is like you guys have literally adopted the disgruntled customer out in front of the store.
> 
> How fortitious that Marksue started this thread back in Oct and it has got all this traffic. I wonder if Allan knows how many of those posts are from NON-OWNERS?
> 
> And the threat of a brand boycott?
> 
> Wow, where is that in this thread?


----------



## tlwmkw

Marksue,

This is very interesting.  Marriott has again circled the wagons and you are surprised?  They are responding to threats from you and the others working with you.  Mr. Cohens comments at the Marriott shareholders meeting are also very interesting.  It's too bad this had to get so out of hand.  As Allan says above it's turning into a Bleak House situation.  The only problem will be that you are dealing with Aruba  and they may play favorites with a large corporation which employs many Arubans and helps fund their tourism industry (which is a big part of their income).

I will be interested to see where this goes from here.  It doesn't look good for either side.  As I've said before I hope you can reach an agreement so that you can all move on from this.  It does seem that seating a new board, if only to appease all the conspiracy theorists, would be a good thing at this point- though I can't imagine many people would want to be on the board now.  I still don't see that a new board could really do anything to change the reality of what's going on down there but if that is what you want I hope you can achieve it.  I would also caution against law suits- class action suits typically benefit the legal teams involved and not the plaintiff or defendant.  Don't send good money after bad- you've already had an increase in MF's and a special assessment- with lawyers involved it'll only get worse.

Good luck, tlwmkw


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> Susan,
> 
> In the beginning we tried to do this without legal representation in an effort resolve this issue in a professional manner.  With Marriott's lack of response and underhanded actions, as occurred at the board meeting, we have now retained legal representation both in Aruba and the US. The attorneys are doing the work on a contingency basis as there are multiple actions under way.  There are multiple tracks taking place now and as I am permitted to share what is occurring I will post it.  As papers are served and I am given the ok I will share what we are doing.  But since Marriott does monitor this board I will not share what is planned until it is executed.



Well, I hope you've retained legal representation, Marksue, I really do, because I think that your chances of success with your efforts is slim to none without it.  But I hope you also understand my skepticism, because other than the "... _both in Aruba and_ ..." this sounds similar to the claims you've made throughout this thread about ongoing contingency arrangements.  So I'll ask point-blank here - have you actually hired attorneys who are reviewing the materials, will be recommending a course of action and drafting the necessary paperwork for those actions, and will submit all future correspondence on your behalf?


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> Now I have this visual of Bill Marriott up at 3:00 am, in his bathrobe. Camera fades back and we see he is in his bedroom, room is dark except for the light of his laptop. In the background we see his bed, with his wife sound asleep.
> 
> Camera switches to a close-up, illuminated by the off-light of his LCD. A scowl comes over his face and you hear him muttering, "what are those pesky OC owners up to now". Fade to black



Hmmmm, I don't know.  Wouldn't he eventually be as obsessed with upping his post count as everyone else here?


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> ... so you followed the rules and got the necessary owners to sign a letter to show the numbers you needed ...



Point of Order:  Marksue signed a letter.  Marriott/MVCI/the BOD was not furnished with the actual signatures of the people whose names were included on that list.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Delegation Of Authority.*




SueDonJ said:


> Wouldn't he eventually be as obsessed with upping his post count as everyone else here?


For that, he has people. 

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


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> May 19, 2009 ... THANK YOU  ALLAN COHEN



I am stunned.  And I want to go on record (it must be on record if _they_ are reading, right?) as saying that I don't ever want any member of any of my resorts BOD's to engage in anything that remotely resembles this inflammatory, unsubstantiated, hostile, accusatory tirade.  After all of your efforts have been successfully rebuffed by Marriott at every turn by virtue of the protections contained in the contracts, do any of you seriously believe that this is the correct manner in which to proceed?

Mind-boggling.  Wow.


----------



## qlaval

ecwinch said:


> Yes, it is an implied contract that you can remain a MARRIOTT resort if you do not threaten the corporation whose name is on the door.
> I do not know why this would be viewed as unethical.
> 
> If it was the Qlaval Ocean Club, I really doubt that you would continue to affiliate with the resort if the owners accused you of 10% of rhetoric that MVCI has been accused of here.



_I do not know why this would be viewed as unethical?_
Simply because they don't respect the voting result of the owners...:annoyed: 

As for the 2th part, the "_Qlaval Ocean Club_" would continue to affiliate with the resort as long as it is the wish of a majority of owners.


----------



## qlaval

We are not talking about one person here... we are talking about the democratic voting results of *ALL* the owners that have been disregard solely for Marriott's interest...

It is the proof that Marriott want their man in place and nobody else to watch over...


----------



## lovearuba

*Followed all the rules*



qlaval said:


> We are not talking about one person here... we are talking about the democratic voting results of *ALL* the owners that have been disregard solely for Marriott's interest...
> 
> It is the proof that Marriott want their man in place and nobody else to watch over...


 
We followed all the rules, and what did it get us?  It got us to the truth about Marriott timeshares and the Marriott brand. It is a money making organization that does not care about the customers it serves.  We continue to see Marriott supporters post to this site because of escalating committment to in some way try to protect the beliefs they have in Marriott.  You should now remember all the advise you provided to follow the rules, give democracy a try.  Democracy had a slap in the face and dictatorship won a small victory.  For some of you that continue to support Marriott and berate the owners of the ocean club, take the blinders off as you watch this continue.


----------



## SueDonJ

qlaval said:


> We are not talking about one person here... we are talking about the democratic voting results of *ALL* the owners that have been disregard solely for Marriott's interest...
> 
> It is the proof that Marriott want their man in place and nobody else to watch over...



Perhaps Marriott acted as they did because they realized that a minority splinter group of unhappy owners was acting in collusion to unseat a board member who is finally taking the proper steps to get the resort back up to par financially and structurally, and their unprecedented but legal maneuvering with the votes they hold is an attempt to combat that collusion in the best overall interest of the resort, all of its owners, and itself as the management company?

I think it's proof that this public campaign to discredit Marriott had one of those unintended consequences that the group has been warned about here by a few critics - maybe if you all had not advertised your dissatisfaction in the combative and accusatory manner in which you did, Marriott would have had no reason to plan for and execute the legal control they exerted over the latest board meeting.  Maybe.  But probably not - most likely their plans to legally take control of the meeting and the vote were begun the day that they received warning of your minority group's intent by way of that ineffective letter from Marksue. 

As others have said, it's Marriott's name on the door.  Best to be cautious and correct and informed if you want it to stay that way.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> We followed all the rules, and what did it get us?  It got us to the truth about Marriott timeshares and the Marriott brand. It is a money making organization that does not care about the customers it serves.  We continue to see Marriott supporters post to this site because of escalating committment to in some way try to protect the beliefs they have in Marriott.  You should now remember all the advise you provided to follow the rules, give democracy a try.  Democracy had a slap in the face and dictatorship won a small victory.  For some of you that continue to support Marriott and berate the owners of the ocean club, take the blinders off as you watch this continue.



Are ANY of you willing to acknowledge that the efforts of your group may have had a chance at success if you had only abided by the same bylaws and contractual obligations that you expected Marriott/MVCI/your board to follow?

You make no sense.  You want to unseat board members based on the legal protections contained in the bylaws, but you don't want to follow the legal procedure for doing so.  You want Marriott/MVCI/your BOD to do whatever you think would be the right thing, with absolutely no regard for what is best for the overall ownership, the resort, and the management company.  You want your critics to take your word for it that Marriott is some big bad overlord and you are all victims, while providing no proof that a breach of contract has occurred.  You take every concession that Marriott has offered and turn it into a demand for more.

The folks wearing the blinders, it seems to me, are the ones who expect of their timeshare anything more than what is contractually enforceable, and relief from the Court with no regard for the procedure.


----------



## modoaruba

It's not the Democrats nor the Republicans that brought us to these tumultous times.It is us the owners of the country,by staying complacent through the years allowing our elected officials to do as they please that got us in this mess of an economy.

Here we are just dealing with one corporation and one BOD.
Why shouldn't  anyone be able to ask questions as to what's going on?
Since we are the owners who pay the bills are we asking too much for transparancy?

Wouldn't a taxpayer want to make sure his taxes are not squandered since it is their hard earned income?

After all ,we as of right now, are a free people with a right to ask questions.Should we sit back and allow a governing body to slowly chip away at our rights?

No matter what ,there will always be opposing views to any issues.
But the beauty is that there can be and there should be.

I believe that wether one sides with marksue or not, we need those opposing views to add checks and balances to our investment. The right to disagree is a powerful tool.


----------



## qlaval

SueDonJ said:


> Perhaps Marriott acted as they did because they realized that a minority splinter group of unhappy owners was acting in collusion to unseat a board member who is finally taking the proper steps to get the resort back up to par financially and structurally, and their unprecedented but legal maneuvering with the votes they hold is an attempt to combat that collusion in the best overall interest of the resort, all of its owners, and itself as the management company?......



So you're telling me that a corporation like Marriott can strip us from our democratic rights if it is for our "better" good!?!
Don't you see a very, very dangerous precedent?
_"Hey! Stop thinking little owners big Marriott knows what is best for you and will protect you..."_



SueDonJ said:


> Perhaps Marriott acted as they did because they realized that a minority splinter group of unhappy owners was acting....



There was a total of 4156 votes for another President and 2112 for the actual one.
I don't see a small minority splinter group action here.... I see a lots of dissatisfaction toward the actual BOD.
And please don't start to try explaining why you think this dissatisfaction shouldn't be unless you want to play Marriott's game.

Unpopular decisions costing someone's seat? 
In an election process that has happen a 1000 times before... and nobody came to change the rules because some corporation thought it was unmerited...

It clearly shows that Marriott is ready to plays with the rules to obtain the wanted result and to me that's pretty scary...

Try to imagine your actual government doing the same for your better good because of an "obscure and dangerous group"... it is a nonsense!


----------



## timeos2

SueDonJ said:


> Are ANY of you willing to acknowledge that the efforts of your group may have had a chance at success if you had only abided by the same bylaws and contractual obligations that you expected Marriott/MVCI/your board to follow?
> The folks wearing the blinders, it seems to me, are the ones who expect of their timeshare anything more than what is contractually enforceable, and relief from the Court with no regard for the procedure.



What seems to be the result of a botched effort at owner input/control is exactly what had been predicted. By going in too strong with declarations of wrong doing, threats of legal actions, mishandled and incorrect attempts to call a special meeting and more Marriott predictably responded by taking steps to protect themselves and the majority of, so far, silent owners at the resort. That doesn't mean the original group doesn't have a legitimate gripe or that everything Marriott / Management / various Boards did was / will be correct but that any chance of a simple, sit down negotiated resolution is most likely long gone. 

Now both sides will have to follow the exact procedures, time lines, rules and dot every "i". It will most likely require expensive legal representation which will cost owners on both sides. They will pay for the Associations share through the fees AND those that wish to continue to challenge the current regime will pay again to fund that work. There is little or no chance that Marriott will be willing to do things informally as the risk of lawsuit would be too great. 

Too late for an inexpensive compromise so now we'll see how far the dissident group is willing to go (and how they can pay for it) and what if any changes they can force to happen.  In my view they will now end up costing the Association unnecessary expense and are unlikely to find savings or get more reimbursement from Marriott. In fact they may end up forcing Marriott out if they insist on making this a battle.  The worst outcome for both sides it seems to me. Let this be a lesson on how NOT to handle things for those owners / Boards who may have issues with their resort management. Careful research, measured and constructive input and working within the prescribed procedures is likely to get you far more than wild accusations, threats of legal actions and half-baked efforts at short circuiting Board actions. These are big companies, serious operations (as in BIG money) and they must be treated with respect.  Handled correctly owners can and should be the controlling voices through their elected Board. By turning a situation into an all out battle the advantage moves to the better funded group. In this case, as at most resorts, that is NOT the individual buyers. 

Good luck to all and I hope this can still be settled as inexpensively as possible.


----------



## SueDonJ

qlaval said:


> So you're telling me that a corporation like Marriott can strip us from our democratic rights if it is for our "better" good!?!
> Don't you see a very, very dangerous precedent?
> _"Hey! Stop thinking little owners big Marriott knows what is best for you and will protect you..."_
> 
> 
> 
> There was a total of 4156 votes for another President and 2112 for the actual one.
> I don't see a small minority splinter group action here.... I see a lots of dissatisfaction toward the actual BOD.
> And please don't start to try explaining why you think this dissatisfaction shouldn't be unless you want to play Marriott's game.
> 
> Unpopular decisions costing someone's seat?
> In an election process that has happen a 1000 times before... and nobody came to change the rules because some corporation thought it was unmerited...
> 
> It clearly shows that Marriott is ready to plays with the rules to obtain the wanted result and to me that's pretty scary...
> 
> Try to imagine your actual government doing the same for your better good because of an "obscure and dangerous group"... it is a nonsense!



Your rights were not stripped - you and your group were entitled to vote and you did.  The other AOC owners were entitled to vote and chose for themselves whether or not they would - the numbers indicate that some abstained.  But Marriott also was entitled to vote the shares it holds as the management company, and their representatives did so in what they believe is the best interest of all of the owners as well as the company.  The final tally resulted in a board make-up that your minority group opposes but will have to accept unless you're willing to take correct legal action.

I suppose you could call that democracy at work, although I don't understand why there is even a call for democracy here.  The process is defined and stipulated in your bylaws and contractual documents - I don't expect any other influence to come into play.  Nothing about how the meeting or the vote transpired screams Big Brother or impropriety to me.  What it clearly shows me is that Marriott will exert its rights whenever and wherever it believes that its interests are threatened.  As an MVCI owner, those interests are mine and I want Marriott to protect them.

What my government does or doesn't do isn't relevant here.


----------



## ecwinch

I think John's previous post is a pretty good summation of why non-Ocean Club owners are so involved in this issue.

I unequivocally support and defend your right to due process in this "crusade".

What I do not support is the tactics and methods that have been used to solicit support from your fellow owners. It has been a deliberate campaign of half-truths, innuendo, and slander designed to capitalize on the emotions created by a necessary assessment in difficult economic times. You are simply feeding the fears of the majority. They are not supporting this crusade on the basis of a rational plan to address the pain they are feeling, for you know that nothing can be done to achieve that goal.

I stand by my original prediction. If your faction obtains power at the Ocean Club, I need to exchange into there real soon. For I doubt I will have that option much longer. 

In the interim ,the course you are on will have the exact opposite affect on those whose support you claim. They will see their ownership cost increase as the BOD is forced to fend off this ill-advised attempt to rewrite history.

And at some point, I think we have to recognize that this "firestorm" for owners rights, is really a "crusade" to extract a pound of flesh for what happened to one well-intentioned former BOD President. Given his propensity for bending the truth, I fully understand why he no longer has his position.


----------



## SueDonJ

You know, I want to say again that as much as my pragmatic approach may leave the impression that I am totally against the cause and the efforts of this group of AOC owners, that's not entirely the case.  I do have empathy for the situation you all find yourselves in, and can completely understand the frustration that you're feeling as you try to work out whether or not your Marriott timeshare ownership is worth the price anymore.  I love my timeshares and don't ever want to reach a point where they offer more grief than enjoyment.

But it is much easier for me than it is for you to look at the issues at AOC from all angles because I am not directly affected.  I have tried here to limit my criticisms to only the actions, not the people performing them, and I have tried to explain why I believe differently than you do that Marriott has not acted incorrectly.  If I haven't been successful and any of you feel personally insulted, I am sincerely sorry.


----------



## tlwmkw

timeos, ecwinch, and suedonj are all correct.  To me this feels like watching a car accident happening and you are helpless to do anything to stop it- the only problem is that the owners are in a tiny smart-car and they are about to have a head-on collision with the 18-wheeler that is Marriott/MVCI, and that 18 wheeler is full of high priced corporate lawyers.  There doesn't seem to be any good outcome for anyone in this.  

At least when the renovation is done the resort will be even better than it already is and you will be able to see where your MF's are going- I don't know if that will make you feel any better or not.  To my mind you should be fighting to make sure that budgets are appropriate from here on so that you are not faced with further special assessments and large hikes in MF's in the future.  That seems more important than unseating the board.  I see a disconnect in the fact that Allan Cohen was the president of your board when the budget was obviously mismanaged/underfunded and yet you have nothing but good to say about him.  Why did he not ensure that appropriate reserves were maintained to prevent the current shock of the cost of renovation?  That is his fiduciary responsibility as president of the board.  Maybe I'm onto something here- another conspiracy headed by Allan who is trying to deflect blame from himself by creating a smokescreen that blames Marriott (by the way I do not meant that seriously so don't get upset with me for saying it- but it is about as credible as some of the other allegations that have been made on this thread).  

Those of us non-owners who question all this don't "love" Marriott- we are just realistic in our expectations about what to expect from them.  Marriott is a large, capitalist company looking to make profits- that is the bottom line and that is their fiduciary responsibility to the share-holders.  They owe nothing to the TS owners except for the right to stay a week a year in one of their TS units.


----------



## Eric

Going into war with a slingshot is never a good idea. The few owners that backed this backed the wrong person to lead this fight, thats for sure. 



tlwmkw said:


> timeos, ecwinch, and suedonj are all correct.  To me this feels like watching a car accident happening and you are helpless to do anything to stop it- the only problem is that the owners are in a tiny smart-car and they are about to have a head-on collision with the 18-wheeler that is Marriott/MVCI, and that 18 wheeler is full of high priced corporate lawyers.  There doesn't seem to be any good outcome for anyone in this.
> 
> At least when the renovation is done the resort will be even better than it already is and you will be able to see where your MF's are going- I don't know if that will make you feel any better or not.  To my mind you should be fighting to make sure that budgets are appropriate from here on so that you are not faced with further special assessments and large hikes in MF's in the future.  That seems more important than unseating the board.  I see a disconnect in the fact that Allan Cohen was the president of your board when the budget was obviously mismanaged/underfunded and yet you have nothing but good to say about him.  Why did he not ensure that appropriate reserves were maintained to prevent the current shock of the cost of renovation?  That is his fiduciary responsibility as president of the board.  Maybe I'm onto something here- another conspiracy headed by Allan who is trying to deflect blame from himself by creating a smokescreen that blames Marriott (by the way I do not meant that seriously so don't get upset with me for saying it- but it is about as credible as some of the other allegations that have been made on this thread).
> 
> Those of us non-owners who question all this don't "love" Marriott- we are just realistic in our expectations about what to expect from them.  Marriott is a large, capitalist company looking to make profits- that is the bottom line and that is their fiduciary responsibility to the share-holders.  They owe nothing to the TS owners except for the right to stay a week a year in one of their TS units.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> Now I have this visual of Bill Marriott up at 3:00 am, in his bathrobe. Camera fades back and we see he is in his bedroom, room is dark except for the light of his laptop. In the background we see his bed, with his wife sound asleep.
> 
> Camera switches to a close-up, illuminated by the off-light of his LCD. A scowl comes over his face and you hear him muttering, "what are those pesky OC owners up to now". Fade to black



Now I have a visual.
The smart car driven by non other than Bruce Willis is heading straight for the 18 wheeler.
At the last minute, he maneuvers the car under the truck sideways and comes out the other side without a scratch.
The 18 wheeler continues at full throttle. A big bang is heard. Fade to black.

I love it.

Thought we need a humor break. OK?


----------



## tlwmkw

modoaruba,

I hope it works out that way for the owners.

tlwmkw


----------



## Dean

qlaval said:


> _I do not know why this would be viewed as unethical?_
> Simply because they don't respect the voting result of the owners...:annoyed:





lovearuba said:


> We followed all the rules, and what did it get us?  It got us to the truth about Marriott timeshares and the Marriott brand. It is a money making organization that does not care about the customers it serves.  We continue to see Marriott supporters post to this site because of escalating committment to in some way try to protect the beliefs they have in Marriott.  You should now remember all the advise you provided to follow the rules, give democracy a try.  Democracy had a slap in the face and dictatorship won a small victory.  For some of you that continue to support Marriott and berate the owners of the ocean club, take the blinders off as you watch this continue.


As I said above, it is not inappropriate for Marriott to vote the units they own, even if they have not done so in the past.  It is not an affront to the democratic process, quite the reverse.  As I stated previously, this was predictable and the only real choices were to jump at the compromise or to file legal action, actually both would likely have been the best choice if possible.  Of course legal action is still an option if those involved deem appropriate.


----------



## qlaval

SueDonJ said:


> Your rights were not stripped - you and your group were entitled to vote and you did.  The other AOC owners were entitled to vote and chose for themselves whether or not they would - the numbers indicate that some abstained.  But Marriott also was entitled to vote the shares it holds as the management company, and their representatives did so in what they believe is the best interest of all of the owners as well as the company.  The final tally resulted in a board make-up that your minority group opposes but will have to accept unless you're willing to take correct legal action.
> 
> I suppose you could call that democracy at work, although I don't understand why there is even a call for democracy here.  The process is defined and stipulated in your bylaws and contractual documents - I don't expect any other influence to come into play.  Nothing about how the meeting or the vote transpired screams Big Brother or impropriety to me.  What it clearly shows me is that Marriott will exert its rights whenever and wherever it believes that its interests are threatened.  As an MVCI owner, those interests are mine and I want Marriott to protect them.
> 
> What my government does or doesn't do isn't relevant here.



First you are making false assumptions, I'm NOT a member of any group.
Because I have some common concerns with other owners on some points doesn't make me a member of anything.

With your comments you're are acting like a loose canon who's firing on anything that's not a 100% behind whatever Marriott is doing.
Sorry I but I don't share your blindness.
When Marriott back the motto that the end justify the means I will not hesitate to say NO it don't.

The running candidates for the elections were all chosen jointly by Marriott and Frank Knox BOD. 
I repeat ONLY pre approved Marriott candidates were listed!
(Not a single member on your "conspirator group" there...)

So tell me why the owners ARE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO DECIDE which one.
Was it because Marriott allowed 3 bad and one good candidate for this election?
Of course not! Marriott had clear preferences.
They were only willing to concede the appearance of democracy not the results that comes with it....
As an owner it is very troublesome that the man who was chosen by the MAJORITY of owners is now for the first time chosen by MVCI himself instead.

Remember that this is the person who is supposed to represent my best interests when negotiating with Marriott!
You can't hardly have a better example of a conflict of interest...  

_"...As an MVCI owner, those interests are mine and I want Marriott to protect them..."_
Wrong again as this proves that Marriott only protect their own interest not yours. 
And those interests are not necessarily the same for the owners.

And if you want to add to this post that Marriott is always doing the right thing....
Maybe but only when it is for their own interest surely not ours...


----------



## SueDonJ

qlaval said:


> First you are making false assumptions, I'm NOT a member of any group.
> Because I have some common concerns with other owners on some points doesn't make me a member of anything.
> 
> By your comments you're are acting like a loose canon who's firing on anything that's not a 100% behind whatever Marriott is doing.
> Sorry I but I don't share your blindness.
> When Marriott back the motto that the end justify the means I will not hesitate to say NO it don't.
> 
> The running candidates for the elections were all chosen by Marriott and Frank Knox BOD.
> I repeat ONLY pre approved Marriott members were listed!
> (Not a single member on your "conspirator group" there...)
> 
> And owners ARE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO DECIDE which one.
> Was it because Marriott allowed 3 incompetents and one excellent for this election?
> Of course not! Marriott had clear preferences.
> They were only willing to concede the appearance of democracy not the results that comes with it....
> As an owner it is very troublesome that the man who was chosen by the MAJORITY of owners is now for the first time chosen by MVCI himself instead.
> 
> Remember that this is the person who is supposed to represent my best interests when negotiating with Marriott!
> You can't hardly have a bigger conflict of interest...
> 
> _As an MVCI owner, those interests are mine and I want Marriott to protect them._
> Wrong again as this proves that Marriott only protect their own interest not yours.
> And their interests are clearly not the same as the owners ones.
> 
> And if you want to add to this post that Marriott is always doing the right thing....
> Yes but only for them...



This is rambling and disjointed, difficult to follow.  Also, it doesn't appear to take into consideration any of the comments that have already been made by me and/or others which respond to your concerns.

You don't want the answers that differ from your opinion, you want validation for your frustration and anger.  Fine, you've gotten that, if you would bother to read what's been written before.  You also want a punching bag.  That's not me.


----------



## c20854@aol.com

*Rather than attack the messengers - Just blame me - Allan Cohen*

I have been reading some of the recent comments since the posting of my statement from the Marriott International Annual Meeting and the Aruba Ocean Club Annual Meeting. I stand by my comments, my reputation and my continued efforts on behalf of the Ocean Club Owners. 

The Owners at the Aruba Ocean Club want to understand the issues and get truthful and timely information. I have tried and will continue to try to get Marriott International to get involved in a resolution. 

It seems some of you - just like to vent for Marriott, but you have not been constructive or a party to all of this. I am not shirking my responsibility since I have been on the Board, but I accepted Marriott's words without question and now feel responsible for not being more diligent. Yes, if it makes you feel better you can blame me! 

It was not until I started questioning about complaints that Owners raised about the Building that I became a problem. Also, my questions regarding lost revenue from the lobby space etc have been a thorn to Marriott. Yes, they did pay us back over $100,000 for the nine years of lost revenue that they collected, but I still do not have an answer to what I consider potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars of lost revenue from their Sales desk. Since their attorney and the Boards do not agree - lets get an opinion and clear this up once and for all. Does this sound fair! 

Also, the Board hired independent mold, environmental and structural consultants whose reports are not final, yet the Board has informed the Owners that everything is fine. They are now not going to review the concerns raised by the Boards hired structural engineers, rather everything goes back to Marriott's consultants. Why is the roof underlayment not mechanically fastened per mfg requirement?  Have our consultants signed off on the roof load and drainage capacity?  A licensed structural engineer is fine, but at least let us get a review of the issues that our consultants raised and what is wrong with asking Marriott for a hold harmless on all the work that is being done with their oversight. 

To note a few, if any Owner had seen the workmanship on the atrium windows that our consultant showed me they would have been shocked. If you saw that the exterior wall behind the lobby front desk just went into the ground without any water barrier and thus leaked from day one you would have been shocked. No one should have accepted this workmanship. 


The Owners have been paying for these and many other building failures time after time. Unfortunately, it was not until we passed the January 14, 2008 resolution threatening to forward all our issues to legal counsel that Marriott ever reacted. I feel that the past lack of oversight has cost us dearly.

The Owners need to see how much they have spent over the past years on repairs and maintenance for a problem building. Remember, the Owners are paying for all this. It did not make any Owner feel good to see the printed historical records of Aruba found recently which states: 

*"...There were more serious problems for two hotels under construction north of Holiday Inn, which were to be named Plantation Bay and Beta Hotel respectively. Before construction was completed, they ran out of money, the Italian contractors had left without notice and the unfinished buildings were left empty for years, like modern time ruins. The government was even considering blowing up the skeletons when hotel magnate Marriott took care of them. In the course of the nineties, the Marriott Aruba Resort (the former Plantation Bay) was finished, followed by the Marriott Vacation Club (the former Beta Hotel). In 2007, the enormous Marriott Surf Club completed the triptych. That was how one of the darkest pages of the history of tourism in Aruba ended. For the island and for the government of Aruba however, the misery was not over yet.: the companies that had begun developing these and some other never started projects with government guarantees, summoned the country of Aruba and its government in court in the United States and in Italy and won their claims. Tens of millions of dollars were at stake, guaranteed by the government at that time. The government had to comply and the financial obligations that were the consequence of this were an enormous burdon on the state budget, which still causes an increasing deficit on the state balance."*

For many Owners this news and the lack of disclosure raises many concerns. 

As I have stated before, anyone who wants to contact me, please feel free to do so. I do not see any purpose for the few of you who continue to vent against the Concerned Owners. I realize that Marriott reads these posts everyday, and my statement to the Board of Directors of Marriott International stand. I am willing to work with them at any time. I do feel that this can be resolved with some understanding. Unfortunately, MVCI cannot be the vehicle alone, they are too close to the situation.

If you talk to a concerned Owner in person you will not find them unreasonable, although everyone expresses themselves in a different manner. They only want fairness. Sometimes the blogs get out of control, especially when some of you just want to bait each other. 

But every Owner is entitled to know what is going on. I do not feel that any information (other than maybe a personnel issues) that I as a Board member and Owner know could not be shared with my fellow Owners. I have been accused of telling Owners too much. 

The Board should not be afraid of openness, we should be working together. 

It is unfortunate that a few of those on this blog continue to bash those asking questions or providing information. Why not stop and work towards getting constructive answers from Marriott to the concerns raised about the building,management oversight, lost revenue and the costs that Owners have incurred.  

This is my first post, since we have many issues and should be working together to resolve, you can email or call me directly with constructive comments in the future. Thank you.

Allan Cohen 
Former President Aruba Ocean Club 
c20854@aol.com


----------



## ecwinch

Allan,

Thanks for showing up. Early on when I asked the question of why you were not here to verify the information that Marksue was presenting on your behalf, Marksue responded that you were able to post on a public forum since you were a member of the BOD.

What has changed in that regard? Are you no longer a member of the BOD?

And can you articulate your plan to addressing the challenges that are facing the Ocean Club. 

And if you were Bill Marriott, what would you do to resolve this situation. I would be interested in hearing what equitable relief you think should be provided. You speak of working together with Marriott while by-passing MVCI. Can you outline how you envision Marriott addressing your concerns?

Thanks


----------



## lovearuba

c20854@aol.com said:


> I
> This is my first post, since we have many issues and should be working together to resolve, you can email or call me directly with constructive comments in the future. Thank you.
> 
> Allan Cohen
> Former President Aruba Ocean Club
> c20854@aol.com


 
Thanks Allan,
I am very proud of you and continue to be amazed at your honesty and commitment with this.  I don't blame the board for not knowing what wasnt shared with them.  I blame them for not seeking the transparency you do.  It was hard to take much of the abuse that goes on with this thread and I am sure I irritated folks by my commitment to the cause but I am still proud to be one of the owners working for change.  I am proud of you and Mark and any other owner who has continued to support this effort.  Thanks again...


----------



## modoaruba

Allan's integrity is what is needed in a BOD that represents the owner's interest.
But integrity like this obviously comes with a price.
For owners to be complacent feeds the powers that be.

The unbiased knowledge of the history of the resort,the discoveries and findings are utmost in pursuing a solution.

I want to feel that my fees are going to legitimate uses without supporting a cover-up.

Do we want a checks and balances system with a supporting BOD that has the owner's interest foremost or pay the fees and shut up system?

All that is wanted is the questions answered truthfully and the rightful parties do the right thing.


----------



## SueDonJ

c20854@aol.com said:


> This is my first post ...



Welcome, Allan.  I'm guessing that you are no longer a member of the board since the annual meeting and that must be why you are now able to post.  It's nice to see you here - I look forward to anything new you can contribute to the discussion.

But first let me get some unpleasantness out of the way.  It's best to clear the air, isn't it?  I don't appreciate very much that in your first contribution to this discussion, you write:

_"It seems some of you - just like to vent for Marriott, but you have not been constructive or a party to all of this."

"Sometimes the blogs get out of control, especially when some of you just want to bait each other."

"It is unfortunate that a few of those on this blog continue to bash those asking questions or providing information."_

If you read through this entire "blog", you'll find that some of the critics here are most certainly owners at Aruba Ocean Club which makes them "a party to all this," and those non-owners who have also been participating in the discussion have written of their MVCI ownership as reason enough for them to be a party to this.  I don't think it's up to you to decide if their reason is valid.

I would like for you to prove the incidents of "bait"-ing and "bash"-ing that you believe have occurred during this discussion.  I'm open-minded enough to believe that questioning/suggesting/criticizing the methods that have been employed throughout the months that this situation has been developing, are not equal to baiting and bashing the people involved.  Perhaps you can enlighten me?

I'd also like to point out that none of my words (or those of the other critics, as far as I can see) have been written with an agenda "for Marriott."  It's up to every owner to understand exactly what his/her ownership in an MVCI property entails, and to gain a complete understanding of that it is necessary to realize the protections and obligations contained in the ownership documents as they pertain to the owners as well as the management company.  Just because your critics have knowledge that allows us to believe that Marriott/MVCI/the BOD is entitled to perform or not perform certain actions, that does not mean that any of us has an agenda for Marriott.  I personally resent the accusation.

And finally, I'm sure that this is entirely correct:

_"If you talk to a concerned Owner in person you will not find them unreasonable, although everyone expresses themselves in a different manner."_

But I also think that it would be entirely correct for any of us to extend that same courtesy to anyone who has participated in this discussion.


----------



## marksue

Allan,

It is great to have you on the blog.  We have lost a big assest and the only one onthe board who I felt looked out for the owners. You openness and willing to share information on our investments was greatly appreciated.  With you off the board now I do believe we the owners have taken a major step backwards, as the current board has proven over and over (not willing to open your proposals to address owner concerns) they are not looking out for what is best for the owners but what is best for them and Marriott.

Thank you for all your efforts and it is great to have you hear.


----------



## tlwmkw

Allan,

Welcome to this discussion!  Hopefully you will be able to give better insight as to what is going on at Aruba Ocean Club.  There have been talks of "secret information" and a general conspiracy which is hard to understand when those posting about it are talking at second, or third, hand.  You have been involved directly and should be able to give another view point.

No one here is questioning your desire to have transparency and a dialogue with MVCI but the problem has been the methods you (and others) have used.  You have managed to get some concessions from MVCI to cover the roof repairs, which is excellent, however in the process of all this you have stirred up the hornets nest to such an extent that you may lose MVCI and all their $$$'s behind the resort.  It has happened before and could happen again.  If that did happen you would then have all the costs of the roof and any other ongoing costs associated with the allegedly defective building.

Just because a building was stopped halfway through and left does not mean it is defective- it is happening all across the country at this time because of the economic downturn.  At this time a large hotel project in my town has been stalled at the same stage that the Ocean Club/Beta Hotel was and will probably go into foreclosure- any future buyer will have to ensure that it is not damaged/compromised by being left open for a period of time.  I'm sure MVCI will claim that they did that and to fight them on this could get very costly.

Your goals now should be to work with MVCI to get the building up to the Marriott standards so that it will have value in the future.  If you cause MVCI to walk away from the Ocean Club you may be in a much worse situation.  You cannot re-write the past but you should ensure that the future will not include the same mistakes that have already been made.  This requires compromise and it appears that has been missing in all this.  You need to be sure that the resort is appropriately funded so that you do not get large assessments- the MF's should be adjusted so that this does not occur in the future (and that will cause a rise in fees).  Apparently the resort was underfunded up to now and that should be explained to owners (which I believe MVCI has done) so that they can understand why there has been a sharp increase in MF's.

Those of us posting on this haven't done so to annoy or antagonize but simply to try to prevent a bad situation from getting much worse.  So far we haven't really achieved that but I continue to wish you luck with your goals for your resort.

tlwmkw


----------



## lovearuba

*Constructive comments*



c20854@aol.com said:


> I
> This is my first post, since we have many issues and should be working together to resolve, you can email or call me directly with constructive comments in the future. Thank you.
> 
> Allan Cohen
> Former President Aruba Ocean Club
> c20854@aol.com


 
I got the impresssion, Allan wants folks to email him directly or to call him.


----------



## Eric

Although I don't know all the details of the past, one thing I have heard over and over again was Aruba Ocean Club was mis managed way before this roof issue. Just a wild guess but maybe that was the reason Marriott wanted Allan off the BOD and not because he was to much on the owners side. The roof aside, the resort was way under what they needed for reserves which will fall squarely on the hands of the past president. Just being a nice guy and wanted complete disclosure from the BOD does not make you an effective President. Before the AOC trio jump all over me, you would have no clue who was or wasn't to blame for this and I don't know for sure either but this is what I have heard so if you are going to defend him, do it with facts. 




ecwinch said:


> Allan,
> 
> Thanks for showing up. Early on when I asked the question of why you were not here to verify the information that Marksue was presenting on your behalf, Marksue responded that you were able to post on a public forum since you were a member of the BOD.
> 
> What has changed in that regard? Are you no longer a member of the BOD?
> 
> And can you articulate your plan to addressing the challenges that are facing the Ocean Club.
> 
> And if you were Bill Marriott, what would you do to resolve this situation. I would be interested in hearing what equitable relief you think should be provided. You speak of working together with Marriott while by-passing MVCI. Can you outline how you envision Marriott addressing your concerns?
> 
> Thanks


----------



## taffy19

tlwmkw said:


> Allan,
> 
> Welcome to this discussion! Hopefully you will be able to give better insight as to what is going on at Aruba Ocean Club. There have been talks of "secret information" and a general conspiracy which is hard to understand when those posting about it are talking at second, or third, hand. You have been involved directly and should be able to give another view point.
> 
> No one here is questioning your desire to have transparency and a dialogue with MVCI but the problem has been the methods you (and others) have used. You have managed to get some concessions from MVCI to cover the roof repairs, which is excellent, however in the process of all this you have stirred up the hornets nest to such an extent that you may lose MVCI and all their $$$'s behind the resort. It has happened before and could happen again. If that did happen you would then have all the costs of the roof and any other ongoing costs associated with the allegedly defective building.
> 
> Just because a building was stopped halfway through and left does not mean it is defective- it is happening all across the country at this time because of the economic downturn. At this time a large hotel project in my town has been stalled at the same stage that the Ocean Club/Beta Hotel was and will probably go into foreclosure- any future buyer will have to ensure that it is not damaged/compromised by being left open for a period of time. I'm sure MVCI will claim that they did that and to fight them on this could get very costly.
> 
> Your goals now should be to work with MVCI to get the building up to the Marriott standards so that it will have value in the future. If you cause MVCI to walk away from the Ocean Club you may be in a much worse situation. You cannot re-write the past but you should ensure that the future will not include the same mistakes that have already been made. This requires compromise and it appears that has been missing in all this. You need to be sure that the resort is appropriately funded so that you do not get large assessments- the MF's should be adjusted so that this does not occur in the future (and that will cause a rise in fees). Apparently the resort was underfunded up to now and that should be explained to owners (which I believe MVCI has done) so that they can understand why there has been a sharp increase in MF's.
> 
> Those of us posting on this haven't done so to annoy or antagonize but simply to try to prevent a bad situation from getting much worse. So far we haven't really achieved that but I continue to wish you luck with your goals for your resort.
> 
> tlwmkw


This is what I don't understand either and I have commented about it before in this thread. If the roof or windows were bad for several years and a lot of patch work had been done already then why didn't the HOA raise the amount for the reserves so that no big assessments have to be billed one after the other in such a short time?

Someone here is guilty of not keeping the books up properly. I don't know who is at fault but to me it looks like both are at fault. Isn't the Marriott part of the HOA too? They should have recommended the increase in reserves and the management company should have notified the HOA of the constant repairs. It is a big mess and I sympathize with the owners here. I am glad we can read the progress of what is going on and I hope that the Marriott management company as well as the HOA learn from this and won't make this mistake again here or at any other Marriott resort. Adequate reserves are very important if you don't want these surprises! 

An act of God is something else but this is negligence or something else that was kept quiet, maybe? I hope not as most construction needs building inspections that the work has been performed to code and is correct unless the Government is corrupt and let it slide. That would even be worse as that is hard to prove.

For the record, we do not own here but as a single Marriott timeshare owner (luckily), I am concerned because it affects all of us and also the outcome eventually and I hope it is favorable to the owners at this resort. 

The roof has had wear and tear from all the years you have owned the building(s) so Marriott will never pay for a whole new roof as that is the way it normally is, so you cannot expect that either.

Whatever you do, don't start a class action lawsuit because you will end up with nothing unless there is really a cover-up but I doubt it very much and these type of attorneys will get most of the proceeds and the Marriott will pass their expenses right on to you or all of us.


----------



## ecwinch

Eric said:


> Although I don't know all the details of the past, one thing I have heard over and over again was Aruba Ocean Club was mis managed way before this roof issue. Just a wild guess but maybe that was the reason Marriott wanted Allan off the BOD and not because he was to much on the owners side. The roof aside, the resort was way under what they needed for reserves which will fall squarely on the hands of the past president. Just being a nice guy and wanted complete disclosure from the BOD does not make you an effective President. Before the AOC trio jump all over me, you would have no clue who was or wasn't to blame for this and *I don't know for sure either but this is what I have heard so if you are going to defend him, do it with facts.*



Eric,

Please apply the same standard to your arguments as you suggest for the AOC Trio. The other side provides enough innuendo and half-truths for most of us, no need to compound the problem.


----------



## Eric

My point was the reserve was underfunded and fees mismanaged for years whic was a major cause of these increases. That just plain fact. My point was is it the BOD's fault and mainly the Pres. or was there more factors ? 



ecwinch said:


> Eric,
> 
> Please apply the same standard to your arguments as you suggest for the AOC Trio. The other side provides enough innuendo and half-truths for most of us, no need to compound the problem.


----------



## Eric

iconnections said:


> Someone here is guilty of not keeping the books up properly. I don't know who is at fault but to me it looks like both are at fault. Isn't the Marriott part of the HOA too? They should have recommended the increase in reserves and the management company should have notified the HOA of the constant repairs. .




I agree 100%. Sounds like both MVCI & the Board made major mistakes. By Marritot offering to pay a percentage, I think thats fair. My whole issue here is the Board didn't exactly do their job correctly either yet Allan doesn't want to hear that.


----------



## ecwinch

Eric said:


> My point was the reserve was underfunded and fees mismanaged for years whic was a major cause of these increases. That just plain fact. My point was is it the BOD's fault and mainly the Pres. or was there more factors ?



I do not think that is a fair indictment unless you have specific proof that  there was sufficient information in a reserve study for the BOD to know that reserves were unfunded.

The fact that the reserves were insufficient to meet requirements is not factual evidence of mismanagement. As noted - unforeseen requirements, excessive inflation, etc. were contributing factors to both problems. 

With only anecdotal evidence, it is no more fair to blame the previous BOD than it is to blame the current one.


----------



## Eric

Thats pretty much what I am saying. Anyone who was on the BOD anywhere from 1 to 5 years ago should share in SOME of the blame. I have nu clue who long Alan was the Preident but it looks like he had some if not most of that tenure. Saying Marriott dumped him because he gave to much information is only part of why he got dumped is my guess. In all my years in big buiness, its amazing that when someone gets fired, its always the companies fault, not the employees. 



ecwinch said:


> I do not think that is a fair indictment unless you have specific proof that  there was sufficient information in a reserve study for the BOD to know that reserves were unfunded.
> 
> The fact that the reserves were insufficient to meet requirements is not factual evidence of mismanagement. As noted - unforeseen requirements, excessive inflation, etc. were contributing factors to both problems.
> 
> With only anecdotal evidence, it is no more fair to blame the previous BOD than it is to blame the current one.


----------



## ecwinch

Let me restate.

If is not fair to blame Allan for the reserve being insufficient unless you have specific proof that he knew the reserve was insufficient and he failed to act on it. 

Why should he even share in the blame? He did not conduct the reserve study. I do not know him, but I doubt he is qualified to conduct a reserve study himself. So how could it be his fault in any fashion? Simply because he was BOD president?


----------



## Eric

It is the BOD job to make sure there is enough monies for future repairs etc. What do you think, every 5 years the "reserve fairly" leaves a note under his pillow ? This is something that has to be evaluated yearly.  It is his job to know. 



ecwinch said:


> Let me restate.
> 
> If is not fair to blame Allan for the reserve being insufficient unless you have specific proof that he knew the reserve was insufficient and he failed to act on it.
> 
> Why should he even share in the blame? He did not conduct the reserve study. I do not know him, but I doubt he is qualified to conduct a reserve study himself. So how could it be his fault in any fashion? Simply because he was BOD president?


----------



## ecwinch

Eric said:


> It is the BOD job to make sure there is enough monies for future repairs etc. What do you think, every 5 years the "reserve fairly" leaves a note under his pillow ? This is something that has to be evaluated yearly.  It is his job to know.



Your wrong. It is the job of the BOD to use their reasonable business judgment in setting the contribution to the reserves. They do so based on the results of a reserve study. But they have no ability to know with 100% certainty what the future will hold - i.e will the rate of inflation exceed the studies assumption, will a hurricane hit, or will the cost of energy and construction materials exceed the rate of inflation. All things that happened at AOC.

By your standard every BOD should overfund their reserves to avoid being criticized for mis-management. 

So back to my original point, do you have proof of that he knew the reserves were unfunded?  No, you do not. You are engaging in the exact same tactics that many on this forum have taken Marksue to task for. You are using faulty logic to reach a conclusion that is not supported by the facts.


----------



## cmed2c2

*THe saga of the Ocean Club*

Below is an email that i sent Allan yesterday.

"





> Allan,
> First of all, let me thank you for all of your efforts on our behalf. My wife and I are 4 week owners at the Ocean Club and are truly upset and concerned at the apparant lack of caring by the current board and management.
> We are going down the last two weeks of June and I have asked to meet the new GM with no reply so far.
> If any other owners are going to be there from June 20 thru July 4, please let me know and maybe we can get together for a little info session.
> Thank you again for your efforts and let us know if there is anything else we can do in the way of support
> Thanks
> Dick & Deb Farrar


Email: Cmed2c2@aol.com


THis is my first post here at this site but I have followed this controversy for a while now and am concerned.
I too have been a strong support of Marriott both with the timeshares and the hotel stays.  The brand name is the primanry reason for buying our first timeshare in 1995 preconstruction in Fort Lauderdale (Beachplace)

Once again, if anyone will be in Aruba during the last two weeks of June, we would love to get together.


----------



## lovearuba

*You will just miss us*

We are heading there early June.  I bought for the same reasons as you and hope to meet other owners while there.  We can continue to provide contact information to them if they are interested in getting involved.  They can make their own decisions on whether or not to join the effort.


----------



## taffy19

ecwinch said:


> Your wrong. It is the job of the BOD to use their reasonable business judgment in setting the contribution to the reserves. They do so based on the results of a reserve study. But they have no ability to know with 100% certainty what the future will hold - i.e will the rate of inflation exceed the studies assumption, will a hurricane hit, or will the cost of energy and construction materials exceed the rate of inflation. All things that happened at AOC.
> 
> By your standard every BOD should overfund their reserves to avoid being criticized for mis-management.
> 
> So back to my original point, do you have proof of that he knew the reserves were unfunded?  No, you do not. You are engaging in the exact same tactics that many on this forum have taken Marksue to task for. You are using faulty logic to reach a conclusion that is not supported by the facts.


Don't they use an accounting firm for that?  They do with our independent resorts.  We receive a report once a year.  I am not sure if Marriott does this or not.  I should check.  It is normally done by a professional firm because board members may not be accountants or CPAs but the BOD have to give them the input for the figures.  I also thought that reserves have to be funded in the account at a certain percentage.

Are there any CPAs here who read this thread?


----------



## Dave M

Yes, I'm a CPA. 

Yes, the financial statements for all Marriott resorts are audited each year. However, it would be rare that an accounting/CPA firm would do a reserve study, which is not directly related to the financial statements. For large resorts and condo associations, that task is normally contracted to an engineering firm that specializes in such studies. That's because CPA firms usually don't have the necessary expertise with respect to how long it will take before a particular asset (roof, furniture, swimming pool liner, tennis court surface, etc.) will need to be replaced. My understanding is that Marriott has some in-house engineering expertise, so having an engineering firm do the study might be more costly, depending on the circumstances.


----------



## timeos2

*Reserve studies can be good or bad*



Dave M said:


> Yes, I'm a CPA.
> 
> Yes, the financial statements for all Marriott resorts are audited each year. However, it would be rare that an accounting/CPA firm would do a reserve study, which is not directly related to the financial statements. For large resorts and condo associations, that task is normally contracted to an engineering firm that specializes in such studies. That's because CPA firms usually don't have the necessary expertise with respect to how long it will take before a particular asset (roof, furniture, swimming pool liner, tennis court surface, etc.) will need to be replaced. My understanding is that Marriott has some in-house engineering expertise, so having an engineering firm do the study might be more costly, depending on the circumstances.



A reserve study is only as good as the information provided and the effort made. We have had quotes from companies for a few hundred dollars that purport to be all inclusive and detailed but are actually 99% boilerplate and meaningless. We have have others from $2000 - $7000 that go into varying levels of detail and on site inspection.  All have to make assumptions about longevity of materials and buildings that may or may not come to pass. It is at best a reasonable guess as to future costs but usually far better than than no attempt.  

Most resorts do one every 3-5 years and base the reserve collections at lest in part based on those reports. The more accurate they turn out to be the better the funding matches the needs. The worse they are the more likely costs will far exceed funding available.  Can you say Special Assessment?


----------



## Dave M

I agree, John.

Further, if a resort has such studies done regularly, as Marriott and most big resorts do, it's rarely the Board's "fault" when a special assessment is needed. Such assessments are necessary when something major and unexpected happens (such as for Kauai Beach Club a few years ago), when assets wear out earlier than expected (sometimes due to adverse weather conditions) or when replacement costs increase much faster (e.g., through inflation) than projected in the professional reserve study.

The only way to be sure that there is never a special assessment is to fund the reserve account at such a high level that there is no possibility of a need for such an assessment. Doing so would boost our MFs unnecessarily high.

On average over the past nine years, only two Marriott resorts per year have had special assessments. That's a bit misleading because several resorts have spread such assessments out over multiple years and I included each year of such an assessment as a separate assessment.


----------



## taffy19

Dave M said:


> On average over the past nine years, only two Marriott resorts per year have had special assessments. That's a bit misleading because several resorts have spread such assessments out over multiple years and I included each year of such an assessment as a separate assessment.


In other words, Marriott has done a good job, I would say. It's just so unfortunate what happened here.


----------



## marksue

*comments from another owner who was at the Owners meeting.*

I was given permission to post this. so dont shoot the messenger, but you will . (I did clean up a few things that was in his email so it could be posted ... fair disclosure)

The annual meeting, dog and pony show, was held 5/15/09. I have been to annual meetings before, but was appalled by this one.  First our extremely so called leader Frank Knox read his opening statement without looking up once, and still couldn’t keep his place or pronounce half the words. He then turned the meeting over to a parliamentarian who was brought in by Marriott to stop anything against their will from happening. She stopped everyone from complaining or asking questions by ruling “out of order” on questions asked  or and wouldn’t allow comments, because it was detrimental to Marriott. 

Allan Cohen, the only board member that has the peoples interest in mind was stymied in his attempts to try to get some motions passed that would have made the board transparent. Second the Financial Reports were never even mentioned, these should have been read and commented on!!!!  

Melissa's financial committee discovered what I had, the $ 71.00 storm assessment times weeks owned equals $804,000 the cleanup cost $104,000, so it was way overstated, which basically means that, the costs are not supervised and the assessments are not reviewed by us, they are just sent out according to Marriotts’ whims.  Where is the extra money going?

I spent 2 ½ hours with Cory, Elaine and Ricardo going over the draft financials and can see what they tried to do, but I do not agree to how they are doing this.


 Third Marriott voted their shares, they never had before, and therefore stacked the board, Frank would have been out!!!.. My summary is this meeting should have just been termed Marriotts’ Dog and Pony Show, they told what they plan on doing  with no input from us.  If Mr. Marriott was there he would have died, this is his name that is being ruined… most people there said that they only bought because of the name.


----------



## ecwinch

I am not going to shoot the messenger. Just wish we had a more impartial view of the events. The verbiage the author uses indicates a bias that does not contribute to the veracity of the report.

I appreciate the report - just wish we had more balanced report of the events.

And face, you guys have decided to play hard-ball, and MVCI is just matching you tic for tac. Annual meetings are not a place for people to make speeches. That is what parliamentary procedures are designed to mitigate. Not sure why that is a smoking gun. 

And to answer the poster rhetorically question, I would bet the excess from the storm assessment is being used to repair damage from storm in addition to the "clean-up". OR maybe it is going into the BOD's pockets. I wonder which conclusion the author would have us reach?


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> I am not going to shoot the messenger. Just wish we had a more impartial view of the events. The verbiage the author uses indicates a bias that does not contribute to the veracity of the report.
> 
> I appreciate the report - just wish we had more balanced report of the events.
> 
> And face, you guys have decided to play hard-ball, and MVCI is just matching you tic for tac. Annual meetings are not a place for people to make speeches. That is what parliamentary procedures are designed to mitigate. Not sure why that is a smoking gun.
> 
> And to answer the poster rhetorically question, I would bet the excess from the storm assessment is being used to repair damage from storm in addition to the "clean-up". OR maybe it is going into the BOD's pockets. I wonder which conclusion the author would have us reach?




First of all how would you come to the conclusion that Marriott is matching tic for tac unless you know something that I don't.

Also I would also like to hear the opposing side.
That IS what this whole thing is about.
Besides Mr. Knox and Marriott telling us that it's a beautiful day in Aruba, what else have they told us?


----------



## marksue

The $71 is a good question as we were told when it was announced it was to recover the money required to repair the storm damage.  Understand they didn’t know the full amount when it was announced, but since it was announced they have come back and told us the total cost was a lot less than expected and was only 100k.  So why not tell us what happened to the rest of the money.

Another open issue and still open is the condition of the building.  Frank sent an email that everything was fine (environmental, structural, roof).  Since that note Frank has said " *I don’t have everything I need on these reports*". So why tell us everything is ok and then say you don’t have everything you need? 

It all goes back to the issue here of a lack of transparency.  That is what we are fighting for and the BOD has yet to be honest with the owners or they leave out key information in their messages.  Not being an owner you don't get all the info.  You hear what the board states, and think they are being transparent. If we felt they were being open and honest then we would stop, but there actions over and over have proven otherwise.  

I certainly respect non owners views and opinions, but the board actions, have proven to owners that they are not being forthcoming with all the information.


----------



## Eric

Just one question. Is this the same owner who used your home computer to create an account on TUG  and back everything you said YET it wasn't you of course ?

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=724026&postcount=1131

(Credibility is hard to get back once you lose it) 





marksue said:


> I was given permission to post this. so dont shoot the messenger, but you will . (I did clean up a few things that was in his email so it could be posted ... fair disclosure)
> 
> The annual meeting, dog and pony show, was held 5/15/09. I have been to annual meetings before, but was appalled by this one.  First our extremely so called leader Frank Knox read his opening statement without looking up once, and still couldn’t keep his place or pronounce half the words. He then turned the meeting over to a parliamentarian who was brought in by Marriott to stop anything against their will from happening. She stopped everyone from complaining or asking questions by ruling “out of order” on questions asked  or and wouldn’t allow comments, because it was detrimental to Marriott.
> 
> Allan Cohen, the only board member that has the peoples interest in mind was stymied in his attempts to try to get some motions passed that would have made the board transparent. Second the Financial Reports were never even mentioned, these should have been read and commented on!!!!
> 
> Melissa's financial committee discovered what I had, the $ 71.00 storm assessment times weeks owned equals $804,000 the cleanup cost $104,000, so it was way overstated, which basically means that, the costs are not supervised and the assessments are not reviewed by us, they are just sent out according to Marriotts’ whims.  Where is the extra money going?
> 
> I spent 2 ½ hours with Cory, Elaine and Ricardo going over the draft financials and can see what they tried to do, but I do not agree to how they are doing this.
> 
> 
> Third Marriott voted their shares, they never had before, and therefore stacked the board, Frank would have been out!!!.. My summary is this meeting should have just been termed Marriotts’ Dog and Pony Show, they told what they plan on doing  with no input from us.  If Mr. Marriott was there he would have died, this is his name that is being ruined… most people there said that they only bought because of the name.


----------



## london

*How Many Owners At Aruba Ocean Club*

Just curious, how many unit week owners at this resort. 

Is the resort sold out?

How long are the terms of each board member?

What is the occupancy rate of owners vs non owners?

Perhaps Marriott and on site management now have a better handle on operating and reserve costs.

Owners should contact board members directly via letter or email.

Long threads on the TUB BBS may not resolve the issues.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> The $71 is a good question as we were told when it was announced it was to recover the money required to repair the storm damage.  Understand they didn’t know the full amount when it was announced, but since it was announced they have come back and told us the total cost was a lot less than expected and was only 100k.  So why not tell us what happened to the rest of the money.
> 
> Another open issue and still open is the condition of the building.  Frank sent an email that everything was fine (environmental, structural, roof).  Since that note Frank has said " *I don’t have everything I need on these reports*". So why tell us everything is ok and then say you don’t have everything you need?
> 
> It all goes back to the issue here of a lack of transparency.  That is what we are fighting for and the BOD has yet to be honest with the owners or they leave out key information in their messages.  Not being an owner you don't get all the info.  You hear what the board states, and think they are being transparent. If we felt they were being open and honest then we would stop, but there actions over and over have proven otherwise.
> 
> I certainly respect non owners views and opinions, but the board actions, have proven to owners that they are not being forthcoming with all the information.



What could the current BOD do to be more transparent? What would be your plan if you were elected to the BOD?

What has been missing from this whole discussion is meaningful dialog of what the BOD could do to address your concerns. It is all rhetoric and how you disagree with what they are doing, rather than what they could do to improve the situation. 

Have you ever made a suggestion to the BOD on what they could do to address your concerns? Besides meeting with you?


----------



## Dave M

ecwinch said:


> Have you ever made a suggestion to the BOD on what they could do to address your concerns? Besides meeting with you?


That question is more than adequately answered by many of the first 1,207 posts in this thread. (The answer is "yes".)


----------



## qlaval

marksue said:


> _ ...Third Marriott voted their shares, they never had before, and therefore stacked the board, Frank would have been out!!!... _



Wait to see Frank next newsletter...

I would like to thank all the owners for reelecting me one more time....bla bla


----------



## ecwinch

Dave M said:


> That question is more than adequately answered by many of the first 1,207 posts in this thread. (The answer is "yes".)



Dave, 

I have a lot of respect for your opinion. But in doing a quick scan of the first 7 pages, I do not see those constructive suggestions from Marksue that you seem to indicate. Maybe I am glossing over something.

I am speaking about specific tangible suggestions on what the BOD can do to address his concerns. Beside resign or pursue a lawsuit.

Very early on the rhetoric becomes - let's get rid of the BOD. I do not see specific suggestions like - "provide us with a weekly update on the hurricane repair" - "provide us the detailed information on budget from the assessment" . IMHO the BOD has been very responsive to his requests.

You may view it differently, and I respect that.


----------



## marksue

ecwinch said:


> What could the current BOD do to be more transparent? What would be your plan if you were elected to the BOD?
> 
> If I was on the board and we collected too much money, I would let all owners know what occured and would have reduced the first assesment by the amount we were over.
> 
> As for not having all the info on the building, just tell us you are still waiting for all the examinations of the building to be completed and make public all the reports already in possesion. As I stated many pages back, I have seen the Marriott engineering report and it does point to exposure to the elements as being a cause for many of the building problems.


----------



## lovearuba

ecwinch said:


> .
> 
> I appreciate the report - just wish we had more balanced report of the events.


 
Hi Eric, I dont think you could be any less bias than Mark.  Have you taken Allan up on his offer to feel free to offer him constructive feedback?.  
When this whole thing started, he suggested we work with the board and we tried we wrote to them and asked for answers.  We asked for transparency and still do.


----------



## modoaruba

MVCI is just matching you tic for tac. by ecwinch


This is just one example of you stating WHAT and WHY MVCI is doing.
How can you substantiate what MVCI is thinking without them being transparant to YOU.
Either you have psychic abilities or you may be part of them??
By making the statements you make, you cannot base it on fact due to the lack of transparancy. Which in turn now cycles this whole discussion.

Let's stick to the facts and not decide what one party is thought to be thinking.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> MVCI is just matching you tic for tac. by ecwinch
> 
> 
> This is just one example of you stating WHAT and WHY MVCI is doing.
> How can you substantiate what MVCI is thinking without them being transparant to YOU.
> Either you have psychic abilities or you may be part of them??
> By making the statements you make, you cannot base it on fact due to the lack of transparancy. Which in turn now cycles this whole discussion.
> 
> Let's stick to the facts and not decide what one party is thought to be thinking.



Based on the facts to date it is my opinion that MVCI is simply matching you tic for tac. 

Those facts are:
1) They never have used their vote in the past to influence the election, now they have done so.
2) They invoked parliamentary procedures, to ensure that discussion was relative to the business before the Board. 
3) They enforced the parliamentary procedure by bringing in a parliamentarian.

The logic is:
1) When someone is attacked, they use the means within their power to defend themselves from further attack (flee, fight back, etc.)

There - is that better?

And to set the record straight - I do not claim to have inside information or physic abilities. I have applied logic and reason to the facts to reach a conclusion. Obviously that is my opinion, but it supported by logic and reason.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> ecwinch said:
> 
> 
> 
> What could the current BOD do to be more transparent? What would be your plan if you were elected to the BOD?
> 
> If I was on the board and we collected too much money, I would let all owners know what occured and would have reduced the first assesment by the amount we were over.
> 
> As for not having all the info on the building, just tell us you are still waiting for all the examinations of the building to be completed and make public all the reports already in possesion. As I stated many pages back, I have seen the Marriott engineering report and it does point to exposure to the elements as being a cause for many of the building problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for making some constructive suggestions on what the BOD can do better.
> 
> Have you sent a formal written request to the BOD for a copy of the report? If so, what was their response? (Apologize if you have already stated this. Thread is too long to go back to every post.)
Click to expand...


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Hi Eric, I dont think you could be any less bias than Mark.  Have you taken Allan up on his offer to feel free to offer him constructive feedback?.
> When this whole thing started, he suggested we work with the board and we tried we wrote to them and asked for answers.  We asked for transparency and still do.



No, I have not. Since my non-owner status automatically discounts my viewpoint, I do not feel the suggestions would be worthwhile. 

I prefer to have those discussions here on TUG, where the ideas can be refined by the collective wisdom of the group.

And we will just have to disagree on the bias issue. We might have different standards in that regard.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Simplicity In Divergence Of Opinions.*




ecwinch said:


> And we will just have to disagree on the bias issue.


Shux, you don't even have to _agree_ to disagree.   

If you want, you can just plain disagree without bothering to reach any kind of meeting of minds beforehand about agreeing or not agreeing or anything like that. 

Might just as well keep it simple, eh ? 

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


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> No, I have not. Since my non-owner status automatically discounts my viewpoint, I do not feel the suggestions would be worthwhile. I prefer to have those discussions here on TUG, where the ideas can be refined by the collective wisdom of the group.
> 
> And we will just have to disagree on the bias issue. We might have different standards in that regard.




Funny how when the opinion of non owners is suggested to be not as relevant those non owners jump up in protest but when questioned as to why they dont wish to contribute they shy away.Easier to just sit here and stir the pot i guess


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Funny how when the opinion of non owners is suggested to be not as relevant those non owners jump up in protest but when questioned as to why they dont wish to contribute they shy away.Easier to just sit here and stir the pot i guess



I think everyone knows I was being sarcastic. If not, then let me state it for the record and I will edit my post to reflect that.

If I am stirring the pot by suggesting that the discussion occur in public, so be it.

 Just for the record I have offered numerous suggestions in this forum. I have also made similar suggestions to Marksue by e-mail. I have offered to contribute $ to the legal fund. Where others have made unfounded attacks against the "crusade", I have countered those attacks.

It is disingenuous to suggest I am only here to "stir the pot". Check out some of my other posts in threads regarding owner advocacy issues before you go there.


----------



## marksue

ecwinch said:


> ]
> 
> Thanks for making some constructive suggestions on what the BOD can do better.
> 
> Have you sent a formal written request to the BOD for a copy of the report? If so, what was their response? (Apologize if you have already stated this. Thread is too long to go back to every post.)



Yes on numerous occasions and no response.  I did receive the Marriott engineers report from another owner, and no it was Allan, and i typed in some of what was stated in that report.  Paraphrasing, the water damage and rusted beams was due to the exposure to the over exposure to the elements.

 I know for a fact Allan has asked numerous times for the mold inspectors report, the Ocean Club engineering report and he was not given it either.


----------



## marksue

ecwinch said:


> Just for the record I have offered numerous suggestions in this forum. I have also made similar suggestions to Marksue by e-mail. I have offered to contribute $ to the legal fund. QUOTE]
> 
> Eric I apppreciate your offer to the legal fund, but our attorney in Aruba is taking the case on a contingency basis.  I will let you know what the US attorney has to say.
> 
> I never wanted to go in this direction, aside from my initial post which was said more out of anger, so before the other Eric decides to go after me on that.  All along we have tried to get through this without legal intervention, but we are now past that.
> 
> I still would like to resolve this without attorneys but it is up to the BOD, MVCI and Marriott to make that happen.  I have reached out to them with no response.


----------



## ecwinch

*By-Laws*

This case is difficult since there is no easy on-line resource for Aruba codes or statutes in English. The only ones I have found have been in Dutch.

I really would like to see a copy of the by-laws. If anyone has a copy, please forward one to me. PM me for my address.

Typically I would expect to see a provision in by-laws regarding members access to records. While access to the members list will usually be rebuffed on privacy act concerns, those same arguments are negated regarding the records of the association (in most cases).


----------



## lovearuba

ecwinch said:


> This case is difficult since there is no easy on-line resource for Aruba codes or statutes in English. The only ones I have found have been in Dutch.
> 
> I really would like to see a copy of the by-laws. If anyone has a copy, please forward one to me. PM me for my address.


 
Are you asking for the by laws for the ocean club owners that was provided when we bought it.  If you want that pm me your email address and I will scan it and send it to you.


----------



## lovearuba

lovearuba said:


> Are you asking for the by laws for the ocean club owners that was provided when we bought it. If you want that pm me your email address and I will scan it and send it to you.


 
sorry, guys.  I looked at the bylaws, its a book with really small font and too many pages to scan.  If you want a specific section let me know and I'll see what it would take to scan it.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> sorry, guys.  I looked at the bylaws, its a book with really small font and too many pages to scan.  If you want a specific section let me know and I'll see what it would take to scan it.



Is there a section regarding the members right to inspect the records?

Is there a section regarding dispute resolution or the members right to request a hearing before the BOD?


----------



## lovearuba

ecwinch said:


> Is there a section regarding the members right to inspect the records?
> 
> yes
> Audit: Article 51: The general meeting of members can resolve at their own discretion to have an independent expert audit conducted of the management of the association.  The independent expert or experts shall have access to all books, registers and any other informatin desired.
> 
> 25.2: The associations books and records shall be kept in accordance with the universally accepted commercial practices in Aruba.  The associations financial reports shall be available for inspection by the members at a location and during times set forth in the bylaws.
> 
> Is there a section regarding dispute resolution or the members right to request a hearing before the BOD?


 
Not sure, but Article 22.1 references the Board of Appeals which seems to have power to confirm or withdraw a decision by the board.  This board of appeals has three members on it.  These do not all appear to be actual timeshare owners.

Theres also another article 23 which allows the General Meeting of the members to have an audit done of the management of the association.


Page 15 references dissolutio of the board which might be useful to you  If you are interested in this section, I will scan it for you.  I have to run for now, let me know if you want more.  Thanks 

This book has two sections:  Articles of Cooperative Association and the Bylaws of the Cooperative Association


----------



## Sunbum

*Assessment*

When was or is the first assesment payment due? 

Sorry for the post, i just found the info.


----------



## vincenzi

Sunbum said:


> When was or is the first assesment payment due?
> 
> Sorry for the post, i just found the info.



It is due June 1, 2009.


----------



## lovearuba

*letter*

Hi
Did you guys get a recent letter because you signed up with Mark?.  I got one and tried to respond but it was one of those email addresses that were not meant to be responded to.  So they wanted to tell me stuff but they didnt want me to be able to respond to it.


----------



## vincenzi

lovearuba said:


> Hi
> Did you guys get a recent letter because you signed up with Mark?.  I got one and tried to respond but it was one of those email addresses that were not meant to be responded to.  So they wanted to tell me stuff but they didnt want me to be able to respond to it.




I received two e-mails.  One was from the Board of Directors at Aruba Ocean Club.  The other was from Dirk Schavemaker from MVCI.


----------



## modoaruba

lovearuba said:


> Hi
> Did you guys get a recent letter because you signed up with Mark?.  I got one and tried to respond but it was one of those email addresses that were not meant to be responded to.  So they wanted to tell me stuff but they didnt want me to be able to respond to it.



To respond you might be able to use: aocbod@vacationclub.com


----------



## lovearuba

*Thanks*

HI
I'll use the address and see whether or not that one comes back as undeliverable.


----------



## marksue

I got the emails as well and there will be a response sent out to both of them.  The one from Dirk had Arne Sorenson, President of MI, CCed on it so you know Arne has been getting lots of email from owners.  Keep it up.

I am just amazed that Dirk, who told owners at an owner meeting, that where questioning the building, that if they don’t like it then just sell. It looks like all he did was take his previous email to us and rewrite it.  Nothing new in his email and I am not surprised about that.  MVCI ahs refused to answer owner’s questions. Dirk and the GM’s have openly stated that their desire is to have a totally integrated resort in the future. Given the opportunity in his letter to say it isn’t so, there is no mention of not integrating the resorts

As for the email supposedly from the board, but obvious it was written by MVCI, shows how much of an impact this group has.  They are now reverting to trying to threaten us.  Once again they have not answered any of the questions we have been asking since this effort began.  It is funny since the letter they sent out, we have gotten more owners signing up with us as more owners are getting fed up.

They are threatening that MF will go up due to legal action. In fact they are the ones who brought in legal to come up with a way to avoid calling a special meeting. The legal action which is under way by this group is not against the association but against MVCI, so unless MVCI tries to push the costs down, which they can not, there is no impact to owners.  Owners on our list will get a copy of our response in the next day or so.


----------



## marksue

*response to BOD email*

My fellow owners,

By now you have all received the emails from both the BOD and MVCI.  I was amazed that the list we supplied them that did not include your email address, was not good enough to call a special meeting, yet was good enough for them to try and scare all of you.  How come they were able to go into our personal information and get our email addresses yet we were unable to get information to contact the owners thus providing both sides of the issues? 

We keep hearing the same thing from the BOD, yet they have always refused to answer our questions. Let me try to address the inaccuracies they stated in their email as well as reiterate the questions they have yet to answer.  There letter once again shows the lack of transparency coming from the board.

1)	The only reason we are at this point is that the BOD and Marriott have refused to recognize the rights of the owners to call a special meeting.  Instead they went to legal to find a way from having the meeting.  They then com back to us and say we did not supply the correct information, even though when asked they did not tell us what was needed and what we submitted was exactly what the bylaws said had to be done.
2)	First of all the threat that any legal action if necessary, (which is not our desire) will cost you money is a false statement unless Marriott tries to pass the cost down to owners which I am not sure they can.  Our action is against MVCI and not against the association. Remember the BOD went to legal before we did to prevent the special meeting.
3)	We have never stated that there was going to be integration of the Surf or Ocean club.  We want to make sure it does not happen. Marriott sales people in Aruba are telling people that if you buy in the Surf Club you can use the Ocean Club Facilities. Dirk and the GM’s have openly stated that their desire is to have a totally integrated resort in the future, We want to make sure this does not happen.  
4)	They say Allan’s relationship with Marriott had become adversarial. If that is true you have to question why that is.  Wasn’t he looking out for the owner’s best interests and keeping us informed of what was happening with our investments.  If that is being adversarial then I want more Allan’s.
5)	Frank has improved the relationship with Marriott to the detriment of the owners.  Since he took over our MF have gone up 35% and we have been hit with 2 assessments.  So Marriott is now happy, but the owners are not.  What is wrong with this picture?  That is why Marriott voted for the first time and protected Frank.  What aren’t we being told?  You figure it out.  
6)	Why should owners worry about negative publicity, I think it is Marriott that should worry about how they have treated the owners and how they have prevented owners from having a voice in their property.
7)	As for the budget, they still have not answered, 
a.	why they used a higher inflation number from 6 months prior to the change in our budget versus a lower rate 4 months later
b.	How much have we paid due for repairs over the past 10 years due to the defective building
c.	Why is Marriott not paying a fair rate for Sales space in the Ocean Club
d.	Why hire 3 people and increase our costs in a time of economic hardships for many?
8)	Why has all information been taken off the website?  Why does everything now have to go through a Marriott employee?
9)	Why was Allan prevented from introducing motions that would give the owners more say in how their money is spent or even delay some of the refurbishment to save the owners from spending as much as they have had to this year.
10)	Why did Frank say a couple of months ago all the engineer reports show everything is ok, yet then say I don’t have all the reports as they are not available. Once again not being honest with the owners.  I have seen the Marriott engineering report where it states rust and water accumulation are do to the exposure to the elements.

We will continue to put our time and effort as needed into this effort.  Marriott will not scare us to back down from holding them accountable. We have asked Marriott International to get involved and we still hope they will. I want to thank all of you for your support and as we move through the process I will supply you with updates.  Allan and I are always available to speak with you and let you know what is happening.


----------



## ecwinch

Can you share the e-mails from MVCI with the non-owners also?

And no, I am not going to try and counter all the inaccuracies in your post. I figure anyone interested in a balanced recap probably knows the facts by now. Unlike you, I grow tired of repeating the same things over and over again.

Thanks.


----------



## marksue

*Response to DIrks Email*

Dirk,

I am in receipt of your email.  I think that Marriott still has you responding to owners after the lack of respect you have shown to owners during the owners meeting last October is a big mistake.  After you told an owner that was complaining that maybe they should just sell is one of the reasons for all of what is taking place today.  I believe what you showed was MVCI’s lack of respect of owners

To date neither you, MVCI, MI or Ocean Club BOD have yet to answer the questions that have been asked over and over.  All we get from you and the BOD is the same line.

Answer these questions for the owners:

1)	Why have you never made public the engineering assessment Marriott had performed.  If you would like I will post it here for you, since I got a copy of it.  You have not made it public, because it talks about the water and rust issue due to the exposure to the elements and Marriott would then be held fully responsible.

2)	Why after I personally spoke with Stephen Weisz and David Babich, and others had the same conversation with them, and they said to me if you do not like your board vote them out, Marriott then takes away the rights of the owners and casts votes, which they never have, and reelects  a person the owners did not want? What is in it for Marriott having Frank in as President?

3)	 Tell us why Marriott has not paid there fair share for sales space utilized in the Ocean club?  Why has Marriott not reimbursed us for the damage caused by the leaks due to a defective roof and waterproofing?  The damage by the storm was due to poor waterproofing of the building why isn't Marriott reimbursing us for those costs? We have heard about eating your management fee, but you do that for many properties during renovations.

4)	Why is MVCI writing mail and having it sent as if it came from the BOD? It is quite obvious MVCI is controlling all communication from the BOD.

5)	 Marriott is the so called experts as it pertains to T/S.  Why have you not provided the BOD with the correct requirements for a reserve fund?  Seems you want them low to sell more units and once the buildings are sold out owners get hit with assessments.

6)	Why when selling Ocean Club units no one was told Marriott never built the building and it stood exposed to the elements.  Why are your sales people still telling people if you buy in the Surf Club you can use the Ocean Club facilities?



You say the information supplied to owners by myself and others is inaccurate.  They are not inaccurate they are the facts.  
1)	Did Marriott sell a building that sat exposed to the elements for over 5 years?  Yes
2)	Have your sales people been telling potential buyers at the Surf Club they can use the Ocean club facilities? ( there are owners who attended sales meeting and were told this) Yes
3)	Why have you not paid a fair share for space utilized in the Ocean Club? Still waiting for a valid response
4)	Why have you yet to tell us how much of our maintenance fees went to pay for all the damage caused by the leaks from the roof and windows? Because you never told people the history of the building, you let them believe it was built by Marriott.
5)	Why in the mailings you sent out in 2006 you state the roof has a 25 year life time expectancy, yet after 10 years of ownership it needs to be replaced?  What are you hiding? Maybe you can not sell as many units with the truth. With the Marriott name selling with the truth should not be an issue.
6)	Why will you not release to the owners all engineering reports? Once again it will show Marriott was selling a defective building.
7)	Why for the first time in AOC history did Marriott vote their shares to elect Frank Knox when the owners voted to have him not reelected? Is it because he will do what you want?


Why not give the owners true answers to the questions being asked versus telling us what you want us to hear.  We see right through it.  

Many times I have said to get MI, MVCI and owners together and try to resolve these issues.  Yet Marriott has refused to listen to the owners.  Allan Cohen even addressed Mr. Marriott with the same suggestion at the shareholders meeting.  What is Marriott afraid of?

I and the others will continue this fight for how ever long it takes.  In my eyes and others Marriott has lost the respect it used to have.  A snowball starts with 1 flake and grows from there. The more flakes the bigger the snowball. This effort started with 1 person and has now grown to over a thousand and it will continue to grow as more and more people have signed up since the board meeting.  It is time for Marriott to open its eyes to what is occurring and work with the owners and develop a solution that all can live with.  Arne, how difficult can that be.


----------



## ecwinch

Just a constructive point.

 I think you have some valid points that need addressing. However when you bury those points with rhetoric, innuendo, and bias, it detracts from those points.

You are taking the kitchen sink approach, and in an issue like this, it is better to shoot them with a rifle rather than a shotgun. 

When you do the latter they tend to discount the entire message. JMO.

And just because you keep pointing to it as the smoking gun - if all the engineering report says is that there was rust and water accumulation due to exposure, that is not the same as the building is defective. Rust is a natural process, not an indication of defect. Just hope you have more than that.

Good luck. I admire your passion  and energy. Just wish you played the game fairly...


----------



## Dave M

marksue said:


> 2)	First of all the threat that any legal action if necessary, (which is not our desire) will cost you money is a false statement unless Marriott tries to pass the cost down to owners which I am not sure they can.  Our action is against MVCI and not against the association. Remember the BOD went to legal before we did to prevent the special meeting.



I have been mostly quiet for a long time now, because I had hoped that your retaining legal counsel would get your effort going in the right direction, but I have to speak out again.

I can assure you that if you are getting legal advice that includes the possibility of legal action against Marriott and *not* against the BOD/HOA, you should seek advice from a different attorney. And if you need to ask why, you need much more help than you are getting. 

Bottom line? If a jury or judge hears the case and believes Marriott when they tell the jury/judge that the BOD made the decisions, Marriott will be off the hook. And Marriott will be able to point to provisions in its management contract (see below) that prove that the BOD was responsible for certain actions that you are claiming were Marriott’s responsibility. Then if you later try to sue the BOD/HOA, they will cast doubt by saying Marriott controlled the process and you'll lose again.

Further, I assume you have read the management contract between Marriott and the HOA. If not, you and legal counsel should try to get a copy. As just one example, Marriott's typical management agreement (I'm looking at two Marriott/HOA management agreements right now) includes a provision that makes it clear that it's the BOD's responsibility to determine the appropriate level for reserves. The contracts provide that Marriott provides assistance to the BOD with respect to reserves, but operates in that capacity only “at the direction of the Board”. That language is in stark contrast to your assertion that Marriott is responsible for whatever level the reserves are at. There are a number of other sections that deal with who pays when professionals (e.g., law firms) are hired for anything related to the resort (want to make a guess?) and a variety of other matters that make it clear to me that you don't have a ghost of a chance in court if you pursue it that far.

And your statement that the HOA won't have to incur legal fees? In addition to what's in the management contract, if you sue only Marriott, the BOD will have to hire legal counsel to protect its interests, since Marriott may well deflect the blame. Also, the BOD's counsel will likely want to sit in on most depositions and will undoubtedly spend mega-amounts of time preparing for trial, since you would certainly expect to require various BOD members to be deposed and testify at trial. Yes, mega-expense that will be passed on to owners, no matter how you look at it.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*You Have An Excellent Case.  Now, How Much Justice Can You Afford ?*




Dave M said:


> And your statement that the HOA won't have to incur legal fees? In addition to what's in the management contract, if you sue only Marriott, the BOD will have to hire legal counsel to protect its interests, since Marriott may well deflect the blame. Also, the BOD's counsel will likely want to sit in on most depositions and will undoubtedly spend mega-amounts of time preparing for trial, since you would certainly expect to require various BOD members to be deposed and testify at trial. Yes, mega-expense that will be passed on to owners, no matter how you look at it.


No matter whether the plaintiffs lose or the defendants lose, the lawyers still win. 

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


----------



## ecwinch

Dave M said:


> Bottom line? If a jury or judge hears the case and believes Marriott when they tell the jury/judge that the BOD made the decisions, Marriott will be off the hook. And Marriott will be able to point to provisions in its management contract (see below) that prove that the BOD was responsible for certain actions that you are claiming were Marriott’s responsibility. Then if you later try to sue the BOD/HOA, they will cast doubt by saying Marriott controlled the process and you'll lose again.



To dovetail into what Dave just said, here is the problem with the action going back to the BOD.

Now this point is rooted in US law, and I am going to assume that Aruba has something similar. But it could be incorrect.

There is the legal theory called "reasonable business judgment".  Basically it derived from the fact that courts do not like to second guess the judgment of a duly formed Board of Directors. So as long as the actions of the BOD can be judged to be reasonable, and not violation of the governing documents and/or common law or to be arbitrary, then those actions are not subject to legal review.

So the decision of a BOD to not pursue a potential legal action against MVCI, would likely be viewed in light of being a reasonable business decision. They weighed the pros and cons of the situation, and decided not to pursue it. Now one member of the BOD may have disagreed, but that does not negate the decision of the BOD. Nor does it allow you to sue them on the basis of having made that decision.

Just because you disagree with the decision of the BOD, that is not a basis for a lawsuit.

They will simply offer the defense that they acted based on their reasonable business judgement and ask for dismissal. The burden will be on you to prove their actions were illegal or arbitrary. So have some proof that is supported by  a violation of the Declaration or by-laws.

But you are of course in Aruba, so who knows.


----------



## modoaruba

*Devil's advocate*

Let's see now, a hot cup of coffee spilled will fetch millions in a US court against a large corporation. Only in America. Any other country's court would say that if you were given a warm cup you would'nt accept it. 

Now take our situation of taking on Marriott in an international court, even with a logical complaint. The politcal leverage they have is extraordinary.
I feel that American logic has no equal standings abroad. The international courts many times run on what is called protection of what is good for their own economy. I don't know if Aruba is one.

If we have the numbers to try to recall the BOD, do we have the numbers to litigate?

If it came to the option of litigation at an expense, do we need a majority vote since all owners would have to pay? 

If it did come down to litigation at an expense, what price per unit owner would be a cut off where it would deem to be a loss not worth pursuing?


----------



## lovearuba

*Lessons learned*

If I have learned anything with my purchase, I've learned that I will never purchase another timeshare or think fondly on the Marriott brand.  If that doesnt mean anything to Marriott then they really have forgotten what customer service and product branding is all about.   

I agree with most of the comments on the problem with litigation. I also have seen some cases where litigation may have ended up benefiting the lawyers but business practices had to be altered which should be the real goal. If you dont stand up for what you believe in because its hard then you accept mediocracy.  From my perspective, what I was sold is not what I got.  You can tell me never to trust a sales person because they are not always honest but Marriott allowed them to sell me this property and they represented Marriott.


----------



## modoaruba

lovearuba said:


> If I have learned anything with my purchase, I've learned that I will never purchase another timeshare or think fondly on the Marriott brand.  If that doesnt mean anything to Marriott then they really have forgotten what customer service and product branding is all about.
> 
> I agree with most of the comments on the problem with litigation. I also have seen some cases where litigation may have ended up benefiting the lawyers but business practices had to be altered which should be the real goal. If you dont stand up for what you believe in because its hard then you accept mediocracy.  From my perspective, what I was sold is not what I got.  You can tell me never to trust a sales person because they are not always honest but Marriott allowed them to sell me this property and they represented Marriott.



caveat emptor,quia ignorare non debuit quod jus alienum emit.

Let the purchaser beware,for he ought not be ignorant of the nature of the property which he is buying from another party.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Let's see now, a hot cup of coffee spilled will fetch millions in a US court against a large corporation. Only in America. Any other country's court would say that if you were given a warm cup you would'nt accept it.
> 
> Now take our situation of taking on Marriott in an international court, even with a logical complaint. The politcal leverage they have is extraordinary.
> I feel that American logic has no equal standings abroad. The international courts many times run on what is called protection of what is good for their own economy. I don't know if Aruba is one.
> 
> If we have the numbers to try to recall the BOD, do we have the numbers to litigate?
> 
> If it came to the option of litigation at an expense, do we need a majority vote since all owners would have to pay?
> 
> If it did come down to litigation at an expense, what price per unit owner would be a cut off where it would deem to be a loss not worth pursuing?



The logic you are outlining - particularly the last part - could very well be the exact same logic the "puppet" BOD used. 

Of course not everyone would agree with that decision, but it does negate the fact that it is their right to make that decision.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> The logic you are outlining - particularly the last part - could very well be the exact same logic the "puppet" BOD used.
> 
> Of course not everyone would agree with that decision, but it does negate the fact that it is their right to make that decision.



So are you saying that this might be the BOD logic.Then why are they not disclosing this reasoning, or any other reasonings with the owners they represent?
There always will be oppositions to any decision made regardless of issues.
But by being frank and open to the owners it would speak volumes in maintaining trust.
(too idealistic?)


----------



## Luckybee

Strangely, and although they indicate they sent the email to all on the list "purporting" to support Mark et al I didnt receive it. I may not be the only one. I just had someone else send me a copy. Aside from all the additional issues this raises(and imho I think it adds to owners concerns) does it not bother anyone that they are receiveng a letter directed to them "purporting " to be from 3 individuals to whom they have no way of responding. Isnt that sort of like spam. In other words, instead of responding to them you must instead write to Corey? Unless of course you have the board members emails which are not available anywhere? Am i getting this right? Perhaps that why I didnt get it....good spam filter on my computer.


----------



## timeos2

*not the way it goes*

Dave has it nailed. Either they have legal advice from someone who has never actually had to handle this type of situation.  It all sounds like an uninformed approach of how "things should be" rather than how the courts /legal process works.  It just keeps sounding worse.


----------



## lovearuba

*so much correspondence*



Luckybee said:


> Strangely, and although they indicate they sent the email to all on the list "purporting" to support Mark et al I didnt receive it. I may not be the only one. I just had someone else send me a copy. Aside from all the additional issues this raises(and imho I think it adds to owners concerns) does it not bother anyone that they are receiveng a letter directed to them "purporting " to be from 3 individuals to whom they have no way of responding. Isnt that sort of like spam. In other words, instead of responding to them you must instead write to Corey? Unless of course you have the board members emails which are not available anywhere? Am i getting this right? Perhaps that why I didnt get it....good spam filter on my computer.


 
Luckybee, are you sure they have you as an owner.  I am getting lots of recent correspondence.  A letter by snail mail today and an email today and numerous other emails within the last few days.  Just seems really uncoordinated and suggests to me that they need help keeping their members list up to date.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> So are you saying that this might be the BOD logic.Then why are they not disclosing this reasoning, or any other reasonings with the owners they represent?
> There always will be oppositions to any decision made regardless of issues.
> But by being frank and open to the owners it would speak volumes in maintaining trust.
> (too idealistic?)



As if their attempts to be more transparent have helped them so far? No, it has the exact opposite affect, they are just accused of being a puppet for MVCI.

I think most Marriott owners would welcome the amount of effort they have spent on communicating with owners. But no matter what they do, it is not enough. 

And you have me at a disadvantage, since the last communication from the board has not been shared.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Luckybee, are you sure they have you as an owner.  I am getting lots of recent correspondence.  A letter by snail mail today and an email today and numerous other emails within the last few days.  Just seems really uncoordinated and suggests to me that they need help keeping their members list up to date.



Supporting my previous point.


----------



## Luckybee

lovearuba said:


> Luckybee, are you sure they have you as an owner.  I am getting lots of recent correspondence.  A letter by snail mail today and an email today and numerous other emails within the last few days.  Just seems really uncoordinated and suggests to me that they need help keeping their members list up to date.



Well I know that I never had problems getting anything when Allan was there. They had no trouble sending us 2 copies of the bill for the special levy so yes I think they know that we are owners. But you're right, there is obviously confusion because I just spoke with someone else tonight who was also on Mark's list and they didnt receive any of the new letters either.
In retrospect Im kinda glad I didnt get the letter addressed to me. It would really burn me to receive that type of correspondence and basically be told that I couldnt respond to the writer(s) of the letter.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> As if their attempts to be more transparent have helped them so far? No, it has the exact opposite affect, they are just accused of being a puppet for MVCI.
> 
> I think most Marriott owners would welcome the amount of effort they have spent on communicating with owners. But no matter what they do, it is not enough.
> 
> And you have me at a disadvantage, since the last communication from the board has not been shared.



Being sarcastic? I was too.
I also have gotten numerous emails from the BOD.
I agree that the malority of owners do appreciate the correspondance.
I also believe that it should have been sent out sooner to avoid many of the negative posts claiming lack of transparancy.
Now that its out there, there can be debate as to its accuracy if need be.
Do you believe a majority of owners know about all this hullabaloo or even care?


----------



## timeos2

*Rare that owners truly call the shots*



modoaruba said:


> Do you believe a majority of owners know about all this hullabaloo or even care?



The majority certainly know about the special assessment and care about that. They also likely have zero idea about the brouhaha here and even if they knew wouldn't react. The only area that really gets owners attention is when it hits their wallet.  Most know little to nothing about the workings of the Board/Management and aren't going to lift a finger to figure it out. That's just the way it is in timeshare - a fact all too well known by developers and used to their maximum advantage in most cases.


----------



## qlaval

timeos2 said:


> ...That's just the way it is in timeshare - a fact all too well known by developers and used to their maximum advantage in most cases.



Couldn't have said better...


----------



## Luckybee

As an fyi for any others still waiting...I just got my letter from the "board" today by snail mail. Better late than never I guess


----------



## ecwinch

*Thought I would share*

Early on in this "crusade" I always wondered why Mark seemed to be acting as a proxy for Allan. Early on it was mentioned by Mark, that Allan could not post to a forum like this. 

I kinda that that was wrong at the time.

But now I have found this, while doing research on HOA governance issues. Thought I would share:

CONDO DIRECTOR ON THE CHAT LINE - DOES THAT MEAN TROUBLE??

Here is an except:

And once the majority of the board has approved an action, anything a minority or dissident board member does or says on the chat line to undermine that action is - arguably - contrary to the best interests of the group as a whole. This is not a problem for an owner in terms of fiduciary duty (although it may raise other issues such as defamation or misrepresentation of information), but it is a *big problem for a board member* - because a board member has a fiduciary duty which means a duty to put the interests of the group ahead of his or her own interests or those of any individual owner.


----------



## lovearuba

ecwinch said:


> Early on in this "crusade" I always wondered why Mark seemed to be acting as a proxy for Allan. Early on it was mentioned by Mark, that Allan could not post to a forum like this.
> 
> I kinda that that was wrong at the time.
> 
> But now I have found this, while doing research on HOA governance issues. Thought I would share:
> 
> CONDO DIRECTOR ON THE CHAT LINE - DOES THAT MEAN TROUBLE??
> 
> Here is an except:
> 
> And once the majority of the board has approved an action, anything a minority or dissident board member does or says on the chat line to undermine that action is - arguably - contrary to the best interests of the group as a whole. This is not a problem for an owner in terms of fiduciary duty (although it may raise other issues such as defamation or misrepresentation of information), but it is a *big problem for a board member* - because a board member has a fiduciary duty which means a duty to put the interests of the group ahead of his or her own interests or those of any individual owner.


 
I never officially asked Allan why he didnt post before, I know he was aware of Marriott monitoring the thread.  I suggested to him that he should post so that folks could hear it from him.  I was very pleased to see that he did post.  I cannot imagine how difficult it is to try to put the interests of the group ahead of the remainging BOD members own interests and not being able to share it on a forum like this.  These are not Allan's own interests, they are the interests of many of us owners.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> I never officially asked Allan why he didnt post before, I know he was aware of Marriott monitoring the thread.  I suggested to him that he should post so that folks could hear it from him.  I was very pleased to see that he did post.  I cannot imagine how difficult it is to try to put the interests of the group ahead of the remainging BOD members own interests and not being able to share it on a forum like this.  These are not Allan's own interests, they are the interests of many of us owners.



Yes. I see you got the point of the article in the link.


----------



## Luckybee

I dont think you would find that Allan would be breaching his fiduciary duties by posting here(or anywhere else for that matter). He is after all "putting the interests of the group ahead of his or her own interests or those of any individual owner." That is exactly why he is taking the actions that he has in fact taken. No one can possibly think that after having the wonderful relationship that he had with MVC for many years which only changed when he began to uncover some of the problems, that he decided to challenge them for any purpose other than the owners interest. It would defy logic to think otherwise. I mean lets face it...had he sat back, and not raised the issues, Marriott would have left in place a motion they had brought forward to extend his term limits. Funny thing that they no longer wanted him then.
Rather you might find that there are peculiar unique rules that this particular board put in place that may have prevented him from so doing.  
 As he has already indicated, he is more than willing to communicate with individual owners either by phone or email. I suggest rather than attempting to "guess" why he isnt posting here on a regular basis anyone who is interested in contributing should make contact with him directly .


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> I never officially asked Allan why he didnt post before, I know he was aware of Marriott monitoring the thread.  I suggested to him that he should post so that folks could hear it from him.  I was very pleased to see that he did post.  I cannot imagine how difficult it is to try to put the interests of the group ahead of the remainging BOD members own interests and not being able to share it on a forum like this.  These are not Allan's own interests, they are the interests of many of us owners.


But was that successfully done in this case.  Funneling information privately that is counterproductive to the BOD and management company is likely an even more risky position than would posts on a thread such as this if it can be proven.  If that information can later to proven to have cost the management company or resort $$$, such a member of the BOD is likely at risk personally for legal action for those $$$ and I don't think directors insurance would cover such an action.  I know there's a fine line between being a valid whistle blower and a spy working for another team in such a situation and you can really only judge somewhat accurately which is which well after the fact, sometimes not even then.


----------



## lovearuba

*Transparency*



Dean said:


> But was that successfully done in this case. Funneling information privately that is counterproductive to the BOD and management company is likely an even more risky position than would posts on a thread such as this if it can be proven.


 
Its interesting to me that someone who speaks out for the people they represent should be challenged for doing what they were voted in to do.  We are built on a principle of no taxation without representation and I just dont understand why those principles are taken so lightly by people.  I am disappointed that the rest of the board didnt represent the owners.  I am also really sorry that Arne Sorensen forwards all letters directed to him by owners to Dirk to respond to.  Dirk sends a form letter and promises to get back to folk to address their specific issues.  If I get a specific response I will know they actually read the letter.  Stay tuned!!!


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Its interesting to me that someone who speaks out for the people they represent should be challenged for doing what they were voted in to do.  We are built on a principle of no taxation without representation and I just dont understand why those principles are taken so lightly by people.  I am disappointed that the rest of the board didnt represent the owners.  I am also really sorry that Arne Sorensen forwards all letters directed to him by owners to Dirk to respond to.  Dirk sends a form letter and promises to get back to folk to address their specific issues.  If I get a specific response I will know they actually read the letter.  Stay tuned!!!



I think that is where you are wrong. The rest of the board represented those owners who just want to enjoy their vacation and not have to fund a lawsuit against MVCI.

The owners who would rather not worry about the potential damage to the reputation of the resort, or alienating MVCI and possibly losing benefits from the relationship vs the uncertain outcome of legal action.

The owners who want to come to a clean well run resort or exchange to other Marriot resorts.

Allan represented a minority who wanted MVCI to:
1) reimburse the resort for any increased costs resulting from the defective building
2) pay to fix the defective building

And were willing to pursue an uncertain lawsuit to achieve that result.

The BOD chose the former group. In my opinion a similar cry would have been raised if the BOD had decided to pursue the lawsuit. Particularly after the owners received the first m/f increase due to the legal costs.


----------



## modoaruba

lovearuba said:


> Its interesting to me that someone who speaks out for the people they represent should be challenged for doing what they were voted in to do.  We are built on a principle of no taxation without representation and I just dont understand why those principles are taken so lightly by people.  I am disappointed that the rest of the board didnt represent the owners.  I am also really sorry that Arne Sorensen forwards all letters directed to him by owners to Dirk to respond to.  Dirk sends a form letter and promises to get back to folk to address their specific issues.  If I get a specific response I will know they actually read the letter.  Stay tuned!!!



I hate to say it , but I agree with Eric.
When you say the rest of the board didn't represent the owners,does that mean the owners who did not agree with their decision or the majority of owners who did? How do you measure since most owners are silent?
We don't live in a perfect world. It would be nice for Marriott to flip100% of the bill. Since they are not, as I stated before, how much are you willing to spend to try to make them?
Unless someone comes up with earth shattering evidence of foul play, I for one will bite the bullitt and make it a lesson learned.
We will be in Aruba shortly and WILL have a wonderful time without getting into the politics. Vacations and life are too short.


----------



## lovearuba

*the rest of the board represented Marriott*



ecwinch said:


> I think that is where you are wrong. The rest of the board represented those owners who just want to enjoy their vacation and not have to fund a lawsuit against MVCI.
> 
> The owners who would rather not worry about the potential damage to the reputation of the resort, or alienating MVCI and possibly losing benefits from the relationship vs the uncertain outcome of legal action.
> 
> The owners who want to come to a clean well run resort or exchange to other Marriot resorts.
> 
> Allan represented a minority who wanted MVCI to:
> 1) reimburse the resort for any increased costs resulting from the defective building
> 2) pay to fix the defective building
> 
> And were willing to pursue an uncertain lawsuit to achieve that result.
> 
> The BOD chose the former group. In my opinion a similar cry would have been raised if the BOD had decided to pursue the lawsuit. Particularly after the owners received the first m/f increase due to the legal costs.


 
I disagree, I think the rest of the bod are weak and not willing to stick up for the right thing.  Lets not get so tied up in the word lawsuit since it has been stated numerous times that it was the last resort.  Numerous other attempts to get heard have been done to no avail.  Will a lawsuit be useful?  Who knows?  I've seen some pretty effective ones.  Yes the lawyers get most of the money but if an unfair business practice is challenged its worth the effort.

I dont agree that the rest of the board represented the owners not involved in this cause.  The rest of the bod did nothing to get transparency.  At least nothing that is transparent since I cant see it.  They are not representing others, they are representing Marriott since they are not even allowed to talk.  When they start to open up the actions of the bod going forward, I for one will stop pursuing a change.  I dont care about whats happened in the past and I'm not expecting Marriott to make things right from a historical perspective since they cant admit to it, it would be too damaging.  

What I am hoping for is that the owners are given information that we feel entitled to.  That is when we know what is going on and the secrecy is over. I find it interesting that you seem to want to represent the other owners, you really cant assume you know what they feel, many of them have their timeshares on the market. Take a look at the numerous ones out on Marriott's site alone.   

There are over 1000 owners that have followed the prescribed actions, written to the board, written to Marriott, obtained enough signatures for a special meeting, etc. 

I know you will have lots to say about my comments Eric and I appreciate your comments, I really do.  You sometimes impress me with your interest in this issue.  Seems a little unusual but it does really help folks who have no idea of whats happening to get the opportunity to see what is going on.  A balanced discussion has been fun and keeps it alive.  Thanks


----------



## lovearuba

*HMM*



modoaruba said:


> Allan's integrity is what is needed in a BOD that represents the owner's interest.
> But integrity like this obviously comes with a price.
> For owners to be complacent feeds the powers that be.
> 
> The unbiased knowledge of the history of the resort,the discoveries and findings are utmost in pursuing a solution.
> 
> I want to feel that my fees are going to legitimate uses without supporting a cover-up.
> 
> Do we want a checks and balances system with a supporting BOD that has the owner's interest foremost or pay the fees and shut up system?
> 
> All that is wanted is the questions answered truthfully and the rightful parties do the right thing.


 
Have you changed your perspective?  Just curious since this previous post is not inline with your most recent one.  Dont get me wrong, you and I both have a right to change our mind as more information comes available.


----------



## modoaruba

lovearuba said:


> Have you changed your perspective?  Just curious since this previous post is not inline with your most recent one.  Dont get me wrong, you and I both have a right to change our mind as more information comes available.



Hi There,
I still stand by what I have stated. That is my perfect world outlook.
It has just come to a point whereby being a businessman, where do you cut your losses.
I for one would not like to chase good money after bad.
The BOD have communicated to us their story by email.
Some of us accept it and some do not.
The fees having gone up the way they did is not a good thing,especially during these times.
But the reality of it, it will not change my life.
I still believe that timeshares are not a good buy at this time and since I am committed I will make the best of it.
I enjoy our timeshare and value the time we are there and the last thing I want to happen is to have a not so good of a time.
I would love Marriott to step up to the plate and pay for it all and still believe they should. How much are you willing to gamble?


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> I disagree, I think the rest of the bod are weak and not willing to stick up for the right thing.  Lets not get so tied up in the word lawsuit *since it has been stated numerous times that it was the last resort.*  Numerous other attempts to get heard have been done to no avail.  Will a lawsuit be useful?  Who knows?  I've seen some pretty effective ones.  Yes the lawyers get most of the money but if an unfair business practice is challenged its worth the effort.
> 
> I dont agree that the rest of the board represented the owners not involved in this cause.  *The rest of the bod did nothing to get transparency.*  At least nothing that is transparent since I cant see it.  They are not representing others, *they are representing Marriott since they are not even allowed to talk*.  When they start to open up the actions of the bod going forward, I for one will stop pursuing a change.  I dont care about whats happened in the past and I'm not expecting Marriott to make things right from a historical perspective since they cant admit to it, it would be too damaging.
> 
> What I am hoping for is that the owners are given information that we feel entitled to.  That is when we know what is going on and the secrecy is over. I find it interesting that you seem to want to represent the other owners, you really cant assume you know what they feel, many of them have their timeshares on the market. Take a look at the numerous ones out on Marriott's site alone.
> 
> There are over 1000 owners that have followed the prescribed actions, written to the board, written to Marriott, *obtained enough signatures for a special meeting*, etc.
> 
> I know you will have lots to say about my comments Eric and I appreciate your comments, I really do.  You sometimes impress me with your interest in this issue.  Seems a little unusual but it does really help folks who have no idea of whats happening to get the opportunity to see what is going on.  A balanced discussion has been fun and keeps it alive.  Thanks



I respect your opinion also. I just wish your group would spend more time being transparent, and not spend so much time trying the "incite" the crowd.

So when you say:

- The rest of the bod did nothing to get transparency
- they are representing Marriott since they are not even allowed to talk
- obtained enough signatures for a special meeting

I feel compelled to dispute statements for a lack of proof or as being inaccurate.

Anyone who has followed this thread for awhile knows the difference between rhetoric and fact.

I only wish there was some proof backing up your claims. You want transpancy, then start releasing this "proof" you have. You have the engineers report, why not make it public?

When it was first reported that MVCI rejected the request for a special meeting, I was behind you 100%. 

But then it came out that you did not have signatures. And that not everyone was fully informed on what they were providing their owner information for.

Do you think that if you had not went off half-cocked, we would be debating the issue now. Mark could not even articulate the plan once the owners meeting was called. If you had been a little bit more transparent, do you not think that someone would have said "what about getting the signatures?".

I just wish you best, I just do not know what you are wishing for. I guess a a big judgement for a defective product that you have enjoyed for 10 years...


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> Its interesting to me that someone who speaks out for the people they represent should be challenged for doing what they were voted in to do.  We are built on a principle of no taxation without representation and I just dont understand why those principles are taken so lightly by people.  I am disappointed that the rest of the board didnt represent the owners.  I am also really sorry that Arne Sorensen forwards all letters directed to him by owners to Dirk to respond to.  Dirk sends a form letter and promises to get back to folk to address their specific issues.  If I get a specific response I will know they actually read the letter.  Stay tuned!!!


Actually I'm not challenging, merely raising the idea that if there is risk in participating in such a thread (and I think there is as in Eric's link above) that there is likely as much or more risk in getting a proxy to do it for you and supplying them with inside information.  Actually being a dissenting BOD members likely carries much more risk than is touted in that article if one takes it out of the boardroom.  Assuming his heart truly is in the right place as you obviously think it is and I have no reason to think otherwise, I'd commend him for taking the risk.  I bet he knew it was a risk early on.  IMO it is quite a risk as I'd think the BOD and Management company could bring legal proceedings if they so chose and likely successfully.


----------



## icydog

Eric said:


> Just one question. Is this the same owner who used your home computer to create an account on TUG  and back everything you said YET it wasn't you of course ?
> 
> http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=724026&postcount=1131
> 
> (Credibility is hard to get back once you lose it)



Eric, how do you know which computer was used to make a post? Isn't that Brian's (from Tug ownership) private information.


----------



## marksue

ecwinch said:


> Do you think that if you had not went off half-cocked, we would be debating the issue now. Mark could not even articulate the plan once the owners meeting was called. If you had been a little bit more transparent, do you not think that someone would have said "what about getting the signatures?".
> .



I was quite articulate with the plan.  Once the meeting was called the owners would vote on weather or not they wanted to recall any of the board members.  The remaining members would then appoint others to fulfill the remaining term times of those removed.  With the new board we could pass by-laws that made actions more transparent. Not sure what part of that you did not understand.  I have said that all along.  If the owners voted to keep all the board members then that would have been the decision.

As for the owners not knowing about the meeting.  I had over 500 weeks of emails supporting the effort in calling for a special meeting, and I have copies of them.  The folks in Aruba gathering signatures let people know what was the plan and the intent of calling a meeting.  A couple may not have been completely clear so prior to sending the letter to Marriott calling the special meeting an opt out email was sent to everyone on the list.  If they were not interested in having their name used then it was removed from the list. SO most whose names were submitted knew about the meeting.


----------



## icydog

modoaruba said:


> caveat emptor,quia ignorare non debuit quod jus alienum emit.
> 
> Let the purchaser beware,for he ought not be ignorant of the nature of the property which he is buying from another party.


aveat emptor,quia ignorare non *debit* quod jus alienum emit.



icydog said:


> Eric, how do you know which computer was used to make a post? Isn't that Brian's (from Tug ownership) private information.



Never mind, it's none of my business


----------



## timeos2

*The meeting isn't an automatic recall*



marksue said:


> I was quite articulate with the plan.  Once the meeting was called the owners would vote on weather or not they wanted to recall any of the board members.  The remaining members would then appoint others to fulfill the remaining term times of those removed.  With the new board we could pass by-laws that made actions more transparent. Not sure what part of that you did not understand.  I have said that all along.  If the owners voted to keep all the board members then that would have been the decision.
> 
> As for the owners not knowing about the meeting.  I had over 500 weeks of emails supporting the effort in calling for a special meeting, and I have copies of them.  The folks in Aruba gathering signatures let people know what was the plan and the intent of calling a meeting.  A couple may not have been completely clear so prior to sending the letter to Marriott calling the special meeting an opt out email was sent to everyone on the list.  If they were not interested in having their name used then it was removed from the list. SO most whose names were submitted knew about the meeting.



I have fortunately never had to have a recall special election/meeting called for one of my resorts but if there was it only makes sense to me that all the 1000 signatures - if you had the actual signatures in the format required to submit and get the meeting called - would only serve to force the meeting. Notice would then have to go out to ALL owners along with an agenda. Then if there was to be a vote - such as a vote to remove one or more Directors - ALL owners that wished could attend or submit a legal proxy for yeah or nay to that. The 1000 names doesn't count as a vote - only as the method to get the meeting & then a proper vote called. There is ZERO guarantee that the resulting vote would have in fact removed any Board members.  In fact it appears Marriott holds enough votes - that's what you say about the last election - to out vote the independent owners. So the result would have likely been a special meeting/ Association vote with no changes made to the makeup of the Board. 

It is a great leap of faith to think all 1000 of those that may have signed up requesting the special meeting would also vote as your group wishes to remove one or more Board members and it is almost unthinkable that there would have been enough independent votes to out vote the Marriott held block.  So it appears that with or without the special meeting you have the Board you are going to have to deal with until the owners collectively vote new ones in as it is supposed to work.  As long as they don't why would any vote turn out differently? Again it appears to be a case of wanting things as you think they should be rather than as the documents / laws allow.  What does the lawyer say?


----------



## ecwinch

icydog said:


> aveat emptor,quia ignorare non *debit* quod jus alienum emit.
> 
> Never mind, it's none of my business



The other Eric (not me), was referring to an early post from DaveM, where DaveM, as a moderator, was asked to look at the IP (computer) addresses some posts were coming from. A new user that sent a post supporting Mark, came from the same computer address that Mark uses. Mark explained that a friend came over to his house and used his computer.

Most of us accepted that answer, and moved on. Some did not.


----------



## ecwinch

timeos2 said:


> I have fortunately never had to have a recall special election/meeting called for one of my resorts but if there was it only makes sense to me that all the 1000 signatures - if you had the actual signatures in the format required to submit and get the meeting called - would only serve to force the meeting. Notice would then have to go out to ALL owners along with an agenda. Then if there was to be a vote - such as a vote to remove one or more Directors - ALL owners that wished could attend or submit a legal proxy for yeah or nay to that. The 1000 names doesn't count as a vote - only as the method to get the meeting & then a proper vote called. There is ZERO guarantee that the resulting vote would have in fact removed any Board members.  In fact it appears Marriott holds enough votes - that's what you say about the last election - to out vote the independent owners. So the result would have likely been a special meeting/ Association vote with no changes made to the makeup of the Board.
> 
> It is a great leap of faith to think all 1000 of those that may have signed up requesting the special meeting would also vote as your group wishes to remove one or more Board members and it is almost unthinkable that there would have been enough independent votes to out vote the Marriott held block.  So it appears that with or without the special meeting you have the Board you are going to have to deal with until the owners collectively vote new ones in as it is supposed to work.  As long as they don't why would any vote turn out differently? Again it appears to be a case of wanting things as you think they should be rather than as the documents / laws allow.  What does the lawyer say?



All valid points, and very similar to what was discussed pages ago. I, among others, specifically asked what the strategy was. Mark was not as forthcoming then as he was now. We specifically asked about the agenda issues, and proper notice of the meeting, and got minimal response.

I think the logic at that time was to surprise MVCI. Not realizing that you cannot really do that in an election process. 

And the special meeting probably would not have met quorum requirements without the proper number of owners or properly executed proxies. Just a guess though. Mark can tell you if he had enough properly executed proxies to meet quorum requirements.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> I was quite articulate with the plan.  Once the meeting was called the owners would vote on weather or not they wanted to recall any of the board members.  The remaining members would then appoint others to fulfill the remaining term times of those removed.  With the new board we could pass by-laws that made actions more transparent. Not sure what part of that you did not understand.  I have said that all along.  If the owners voted to keep all the board members then that would have been the decision.
> 
> As for the owners not knowing about the meeting.  I had over 500 weeks of emails supporting the effort in calling for a special meeting, and I have copies of them.  The folks in Aruba gathering signatures let people know what was the plan and the intent of calling a meeting.  A couple may not have been completely clear so prior to sending the letter to Marriott calling the special meeting an opt out email was sent to everyone on the list.  If they were not interested in having their name used then it was removed from the list. SO most whose names were submitted knew about the meeting.



So now that you are willing to discuss the strategy, help me with the following:

Assuming that you had enough signatures to call the special meeting to recall the directors, how were you going to meet quorum requirements? You were not soliciting proxies were you?

I am assuming, based on having read other HOA By-Laws, that any vacancies are filled by a vote of the remaining BOD members. If that recall was successful, that would have left Allan and the MVCI mgt BOD member. Did you have a plan for breaking that tie? (typically developer rep BOD members cannot be recalled).

You mention changing the by-laws for more transparency. Would not a by-law change have to be voted on by the entire membership? The notice for the special meeting was only for the recall of the BOD members.

And help me understand why, if you just want transparency, you cannot just reload and try this again? Seems like that might be easier than a lawsuit.


----------



## qlaval

timeos2 said:


> I have fortunately never had to have a recall special election/meeting called for one of my resorts but if there was it only makes sense to me that all the 1000 signatures - if you had the actual signatures in the format required to submit and get the meeting called - would only serve to force the meeting. Notice would then have to go out to ALL owners along with an agenda. Then if there was to be a vote - such as a vote to remove one or more Directors - ALL owners that wished could attend or submit a legal proxy for yeah or nay to that. The 1000 names doesn't count as a vote - only as the method to get the meeting & then a proper vote called. There is ZERO guarantee that the resulting vote would have in fact removed any Board members.  In fact it appears Marriott holds enough votes - that's what you say about the last election - to out vote the independent owners. So the result would have likely been a special meeting/ Association vote with no changes made to the makeup of the Board.
> ....



Yes you're probably right, but this time ALL the OC owners would be aware that something is going on... which for the moment isn't the case, as many are totally unaware of the situation. 
A majority of owners are not even aware of Marriott participation in the last BOD election...


----------



## timeos2

*Start over - do it right*



qlaval said:


> Yes you're probably right, but this time ALL the OC owners would be aware that something is going on... which for the moment isn't the case, as many are totally unaware of the situation.
> A majority of owners are not even aware of Marriott participation in the last BOD election...



So as ewinch says why not go ahead with the proper notice of 1000+ properly documented owner requests for a special meeting to recall Board members. Then that will generate the proper general notice to all owners as well as the agenda. Then a legally binding meeting and vote can be held. The results will determine if a new Board is put in place or the voting majority truly support the existing members. 

If there is a problem they need to address nothing has changed except the process used to attempt to call a special meeting didn't follow the prescribed rules.  If needed it can still be done but the process must fulfill the requirements.  And simply complaining that "we tried" may make for great BBS postings but does nothing to force the Association to call the meeting the dissidents desire to have. They either start over on the effort and do it correctly or they live with the current Board and try to make them respond to their concerns.    Failed attempts are just that - failed attempts. You can bemoan them all you want but that won't give them new life.


----------



## marksue

The prescribed rules were followed based on the by-laws.  A formal question was asked to the BOD and Corey on what is required to call a special meeting.  The answer was i don't know, why do you want to do call a special meeting. Corey said he would get back to me as he would check with Marriott, yet Corey never gets back to me with an answer.  Then we send in the call for a meeting, with the list of supporters, and then we hear what is required.  Sounds to me like they never thought we would get the numbers needed so they didn’t bother figuring it out.  When they got the notice, they called a lawyer to figure out how to stop it.  So I did what was necessary asking what was required.  So those that keep saying the rules wern't followed are off base.  Marriott changed or made up the rules mid-stream.


----------



## marksue

*letter from an owner to the board .. w/ permission*

Officers of the Board
Aruba Ocean Club

Gentlemen:

I have recently read your letter to owners dated May 2009 and I am compelled to respond to several misstatements and efforts to mischaracterize well meaning actions of individual owner’s who are seeking nothing more than to have each of you and Marriott Vacation Club International do the honorable thing to cure misrepresentations, misstatements and an absolutely abysmal record of irresponsible governance.

As individual officers you have ignored the many complaints and letters from owners such as myself, pointing out the facts, not as you and your Marriott colleagues so often misstate them.  So let me review them for you one more time:

FACT-Marriott sold owners a defective building with an aged structure and defective roof, windows and probably other structural issues which would 
later account for the significant damage caused by last year’s hurricane.  I first hand witnessed during year one of occupancy severe leaking of the roof into numerous rooms causing the front desk staff to move a number of owners into the hotel or dry quarters if they could find any at the Aruba Ocean Club.  Having occurred in year one, the defective roof could not possibly have resulted from “ordinary wear and tear” of Aruba weather as you and your Marriott colleagues once contended.

Over the years this condition has gotten progressively worse with water pouring in from windows, buckets being placed throughout the lobby area to catch cascading water from the ceiling and Marriott sales people using waste baskets to catch the water leaking from the ceiling in the sales area.  Portions of the ceiling in the sales area and in hallways have also collapsed.  Notwithstanding many complaints to Marriott representatives and sales personnel, no action was taken to cure the roof, window, etc. defects until  this Board under the leadership of Allan Cohen pressured Marriott and retained counsel and threatened to sue.  

All Marriott did until then was to continue to knowingly sell units at the Ocean Club to unsuspecting purchasers without disclosing the roof and other defects.  

FACT, the reward to Allan Cohen for standing up for owner interests was that you as officers working with your Marriott colleagues would revoke a previously passed motion to change the bylaws provision on term limits which would then give the owners the right to decide whether he (Alan Cohen) could run for another term. Taking that action, you could then get him off the Board.  And who becomes President as a result of this abrupt change in position-why it’s Frank Knox!

FACT, you and your colleagues on this Board have continued to ignore complaints from owners about this situation and made a deal with Marriott to incur substantial expenses in renovations and charge owners special assessments before it was clear if the structure was sound and free of mold and whether these renovations were needed.  Clearly, these renovations at the Ocean Club, characterized as bringing the Ocean Club up to Marriot standards ( Do Marriott standards include defective buildings?) could be a
financial windfall for Marriott if it were part of a Marriott plan to then role it out at other properties where Marriott can possibly reap financial gain from special assessments, higher maintenance fees or other benefits they might gain from suppliers of goods and services.  You may not be aware, or may not even care, that Marriott had reportedly been sued several years ago by franchisees concerning failure to share payments from suppliers. Actually, as an owner of weeks at another Marriott property, I have first hand begun to see the Marriott “renovation” plan unfold at other properties.

FACT-working in concert with Marriott, you have done everything you could to deny owners the opportunity to exercise their rights to vote and or call special meetings to dismiss individual officers and Board members.  Owners contacted you and Marriott and inquired several times about any requirements for calling a special meeting as defined in the owner documents.  You ignored all these communications, never responding until you received a formal call for such a special meeting agreed to by over one thousand owner weeks and then you and Marriott allegedly discovered
some Aruba requirement concerning validation of owner consent and denied such request on that basis.  Further insulting to owners is that you and Marriott have the owner list and information which you could have used to confirm the names on the list supporting the call for a special meeting but you refused. Just as you refused to respond to the requests about any requirements other than in the owner documents concerning a special meeting and just as you denied access to the names and addresses of owners to owners seeking to call a special meeting.  Apparently, terms like fair dealing and good governance have little place in either your lexicon or that of Marriott’s.

In summary, do not make statements characterizing other persons conduct and actions as misrepresentations or misstatements when you and your Marriott colleagues are the ones who should be looking in the mirror.  Owners overwhelmingly rejected the Knox administration in their votes and it was only Marriott casting votes for the first time for A (owner) members which they have never done before that kept you in office.  


The facts speak for themselves-under your administration, owners have no role in any decisions and their right to vote guaranteed in the ownership documents is illusory as Marriott can and will overrule it at will to satisfy their own business goals. Every Marriott time share owner and any potential purchaser should be outraged at Marriott’s actions in nullifying owners 
right to vote.  

As a former corporate attorney and executive, and as one who has served on several Boards, I have never ever seen such outrageous conduct by individual Board members and a major corporation. Any “fear mongering and threats” lie with you and your colleagues at Marriott Vacation Club International.  Nice job in jointly sullying the name of a once proud and well respected corporation and Resort.  Your actions and that of Marriott are deserving of public scrutiny and any resulting recriminations. 

Sincerely,


----------



## Dave M

A long time ago, you posted the section of the bylaws that specifies what is required to call a special meeting. However, there are legal requirements associated with complying with that bylaw provision that would almost certainly require a competent attorney's guidance. It's not Marriott's or the BOD's responsibility to provide that guidance to you. As I have said several times, it appears as though you aren't getting competent legal advice and you keep running into roadblocks as a result.

As has been repeatedly posted here by others, your group needs to make a commitment to spend some money - quite a bit of money - if you have any hope of success. And that commitment still carries a huge risk of failure. Unfortunately, most people who support any cause have a relatively short window of support, particularly where there have been numerous missteps. Thus, if you hope to win (whatever that now means), I am guessing that time is running out to get that needed financial support from your group.

Incidentally, not just any old attorney can provide the proper assistance. You need someone who specializes in homeowner association law. Your state bar association can make a referral for you. Finding the right attorney is like finding the right surgeon. You wouldn't want a foot doctor to operate on your heart. The same principle applies to your issues.


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> The prescribed rules were followed based on the by-laws.  A formal question was asked to the BOD and Corey on what is required to call a special meeting.  The answer was i don't know, why do you want to do call a special meeting. Corey said he would get back to me as he would check with Marriott, yet Corey never gets back to me with an answer.  Then we send in the call for a meeting, with the list of supporters, and then we hear what is required.  Sounds to me like they never thought we would get the numbers needed so they didn’t bother figuring it out.  When they got the notice, they called a lawyer to figure out how to stop it.  So I did what was necessary asking what was required.  So those that keep saying the rules wern't followed are off base.  Marriott changed or made up the rules mid-stream.


That's one of the reasons some of us were hoping to get the By-Laws and other data, to evaluate this issue more objectively.  You cannot rely on verbal representations for such issues.  As I posted previously, I think the resort and BOD were reasonable in refusing your list because you could not legally show that you represented them and that those you had listed were actually asking for what you were reporting.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> The prescribed rules were followed based on the by-laws.  A formal question was asked to the BOD and Corey on what is required to call a special meeting.  The answer was i don't know, why do you want to do call a special meeting. Corey said he would get back to me as he would check with Marriott, yet Corey never gets back to me with an answer.  Then we send in the call for a meeting, with the list of supporters, and then we hear what is required.  Sounds to me like they never thought we would get the numbers needed so they didn’t bother figuring it out.  When they got the notice, they called a lawyer to figure out how to stop it.  So I did what was necessary asking what was required.  So those that keep saying the rules wern't followed are off base.  Marriott changed or made up the rules mid-stream.



Piling on to DaveM's point - are you saying it is not in the by-laws? And I what do you mean by "based" on the by-laws.

And the information you provide are mitigating factors, nothing else. A demand letter to Corey would have solved that problem if the by-laws do not have a procedure.

And just a point of order. When I start reading the letter you posted, and I hit the word "FACT", and then the item behind is speculation - it just makes me want to stop reading. I am sure the BOD probably feels the same way. 

It is the concept of the bozo bit. Once you flip the bit, then everything else you say, I hear as if Bozo the Clown was saying it. I know you are not the author of this letter, I am just recounting how I process information. 

EDIT: Got about half-way through the letter and I had to stop. I felt I was losing IQ points if I continued. At least he got one thing right, it's back to the Allan Cohen issue. I think you might want to think about what continuing to raise that issue does for the potential for Allan to be sued. Leaking e-mail addresses, leaking documents, subverting the actions of the BOD. What does he think fiduciary responsibility means?


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> And just a point of order. When I start reading the letter you posted, and I hit the word "FACT", and then the item behind is speculation - it just makes me want to stop reading. I am sure the BOD probably feels the same way.



In case i was confused, I double checked the merriam webster online dictionary for the definition of fact and speculation. Given that fact is defined as "something that has actual exsistence " also : "an actual occurence", I guess im not the one who is confused. The letter writer has outlined exactly what has happened. It isnt speculation ! We too were at the property in the first few years and got to witness first hand the repeated water damage, and floods, and leaks, and even the emergency exits leaking with drywall falling off to the point that one had to be closed.
I wont go on and on as some might here but AS AN OWNER from inception we got to witness many FACTS first hand, and this letter only skims the surface !
Unfortunately some wont accept the facts because it doesnt fit in with their skewed version of reality in which MVC can do no wrong .


----------



## Eric

#1. Just at a glance, the first is certainly speculation until proven other wise. We know Mark has super duper hidden information but until that's confirmed than this is still speculation

#2. Again speculation. In most cases, there are multiple reasons for replacing someone. After reading Allan's email, maybe he was way over the top on many issues. Maybe not funding the reserve correctly was blamed on him. When things go wrong the blame the top dog and that was him. Again, maybe you are right but there is certain doubt. 


FACT-Marriott sold owners a defective building with an aged structure and defective roof, windows and probably other structural issues which would 
later account for the significant damage caused by last year’s hurricane.


FACT, the reward to Allan Cohen for standing up for owner interests was that you as officers working with your Marriott colleagues would revoke a previously passed motion to change the bylaws provision on term limits which would then give the owners the right to decide whether he (Alan Cohen) could run for another term. Taking that action, you could then get him off the Board. And who becomes President as a result of this abrupt change in position-why it’s Frank Knox!






Luckybee said:


> In case i was confused, I double checked the merriam webster online dictionary for the definition of fact and speculation. Given that fact is defined as "something that has actual exsistence " also : "an actual occurence", I guess im not the one who is confused. The letter writer has outlined exactly what has happened. .


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> In case i was confused, I double checked the merriam webster online dictionary for the definition of fact and speculation. Given that fact is defined as "something that has actual exsistence " also : "an actual occurence", I guess im not the one who is confused. The letter writer has outlined exactly what has happened. It isnt speculation ! We too were at the property in the first few years and got to witness first hand the repeated water damage, and floods, and leaks, and even the emergency exits leaking with drywall falling off to the point that one had to be closed.
> I wont go on and on as some might here but AS AN OWNER from inception we got to witness many FACTS first hand, and this letter only skims the surface !
> Unfortunately some wont accept the facts because it doesnt fit in with their skewed version of reality in which MVC can do no wrong .



FACT-Marriott sold owners a defective building.

I kept reading, but this is were the bozo bit fell. As a corporate attorney, the writer should have understood how this claim is not a FACT. At best this is an opinion. Unless the writer has the report that says "The OC building is defective..."


----------



## JimC

Dave M said:


> ...Incidentally, not just any old attorney can provide the proper assistance. You need someone who specializes in homeowner association law. Your state bar association can make a referral for you. Finding the right attorney is like finding the right surgeon. You wouldn't want a foot doctor to operate on your heart. The same principle applies to your issues.



And likely one who is licensed to practice in Aruba.


----------



## lovearuba

*previous post*



JimC said:


> And likely one who is licensed to practice in Aruba.


 
This has already been done, see the previous post.

Susan,

In the beginning we tried to do this without legal representation in an effort resolve this issue in a professional manner. With Marriott's lack of response and underhanded actions, as occurred at the board meeting, we have now retained legal representation both in Aruba and the US. The attorneys are doing the work on a contingency basis as there are multiple actions under way. There are multiple tracks taking place now and as I am permitted to share what is occurring I will post it. As papers are served and I am given the ok I will share what we are doing. But since Marriott does monitor this board I will not share what is planned until it is executed.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> This has already been done, see the previous post.
> 
> Susan,
> 
> In the beginning we tried to do this without legal representation in an effort resolve this issue in a professional manner. With Marriott's lack of response and underhanded actions, as occurred at the board meeting, we have now retained legal representation both in Aruba and the US. The attorneys are doing the work on a contingency basis as there are multiple actions under way. There are multiple tracks taking place now and as I am permitted to share what is occurring I will post it. As papers are served and I am given the ok I will share what we are doing. But since Marriott does monitor this board I will not share what is planned until it is executed.



lovearuba, I followed that up with a post here to Marksue asking him to clarify the "contingency arrangement" with the attorney(s), as well as how the new arrangement with an Aruban attorney differed from the ongoing arrangement with a US attorney, and have yet to receive a response.  I still think that your legal representation (whatever arrangement has been in place since the inception of this thread, anyway) is lacking, as has been said many times over by Dave, me, and others.  I still believe, as I have from the beginning, that if you had actually hired _qualified_ attorneys to research the issues and prepare all of the paperwork (especially as related to that failed so-called petition submission,) you Ocean Club owners would have had a better understanding of the legal processes as well as a better chance at whatever success is possible.


----------



## Eric

I hope things are being handled better than they look. At this point it kind of looks like you guys are going into a war with water pistols while they have cannons. While I applaud your effort, me thinks Marriott is laughing at your results so far. The whole email about "FACTS" were about as stupid and childish as it gets. 





lovearuba said:


> This has already been done, see the previous post.
> 
> Susan,
> 
> In the beginning we tried to do this without legal representation in an effort resolve this issue in a professional manner. With Marriott's lack of response and underhanded actions, as occurred at the board meeting, we have now retained legal representation both in Aruba and the US. The attorneys are doing the work on a contingency basis as there are multiple actions under way. There are multiple tracks taking place now and as I am permitted to share what is occurring I will post it. As papers are served and I am given the ok I will share what we are doing. But since Marriott does monitor this board I will not share what is planned until it is executed.


----------



## Luckybee

Eric said:


> I hope things are being handled better than they look. At this point it kind of looks like you guys are going into a war with water pistols while they have cannons. While I applaud your effort, me thinks Marriott is laughing at your results so far.




Somehow I dont quite think that's the case, but I'll leave it to Mark and others to deal with


----------



## Luckybee

SueDonJ said:


> lovearuba, I followed that up with a post here to Marksue asking him to clarify the "contingency arrangement" with the attorney(s), as well as how the new arrangement with an Aruban attorney differed from the ongoing arrangement with a US attorney, and have yet to receive a response.  I still think that your legal representation (whatever arrangement has been in place since the inception of this thread, anyway) is lacking, as has been said many times over by Dave, me, and others.  I still believe, as I have from the beginning, that if you had actually hired _qualified_ attorneys to research the issues and prepare all of the paperwork (especially as related to that failed so-called petition submission,) you Ocean Club owners would have had a better understanding of the legal processes as well as a better chance at whatever success is possible.



Could it be that Mark just doesnt feel the need to clarify. I continue to find it interesting that the majority of people who are on this thread seemingly against the owner action are non owners. If this was happening at any of the other properties other than one I own at, I wouldnt even be reading it , let alone commenting.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> Could it be that Mark just doesnt feel the need to clarify. I continue to find it interesting that the majority of people who are on this thread seemingly against the owner action are non owners. If this was happening at any of the other properties other than one I own at, I wouldnt even be reading it , let alone commenting.



Well, that's your thought.  I simply don't share your view, and I'll continue to read and/or post here whenever the mood strikes me.  As far as I know, the moderators of this site do not have a problem with non-owners participating in this thread about the issues at Aruba Ocean Club.  I'm sure that if they did, we would have heard about it a long time ago.

You, on the other hand, take every opportunity to post about why you think non-owners shouldn't be here.  You'll forgive me, I hope, for not recognizing you as The Board Police.

And you don't have to speak for Marksue, or explain in any way why you think he may or may not contribute here.  He's proven his communication skills over and over again.


----------



## london

*For Owners Only*



Luckybee said:


> Could it be that Mark just doesnt feel the need to clarify. I continue to find it interesting that the majority of people who are on this thread seemingly against the owner action are non owners. If this was happening at any of the other properties other than one I own at, I wouldnt even be reading it , let alone commenting.



Luckybee,

Your point is well taken. This thread is truly for owners at this resort.

Unfortunately, many non owners, including myself, have posted on this thread.

Hopefully, some positive resolution will take place in the future for the owners.


----------



## SueDonJ

london said:


> Luckybee,
> 
> Your point is well taken. This thread is truly for owners at this resort.
> 
> Unfortunately, many non owners, including myself, have posted on this thread.
> 
> Hopefully, some positive resolution will take place in the future for the owners.



I disagree.  I don't think it's "unfortunate" at all that non-owners have posted here.  In fact, I think that if Marksue had taken some of the advice he was given at the beginning of the thread (particularly, but not limited to, that from DaveM), he and the other disgruntled Aruba Ocean Club owners would have had a better chance at success with their efforts.  Instead, they were as contentious with the non-owners here as they were with Marriott, MVCI and their BOD, which didn't help their causes one iota.  So far they've failed in their legal shenanigans with Marriott et al, and they've failed as well with trying to garner the sympathy vote from non-owners.

We all would like to see a positive resolution, maybe for different reasons, but can any of us seriously think that one is on the horizon?  I don't see it, especially if Marksue and the other 1000+ owners don't get their legal ducks in a row.


----------



## m61376

Luckybee said:


> Could it be that Mark just doesnt feel the need to clarify. I continue to find it interesting that the majority of people who are on this thread seemingly against the owner action are non owners. If this was happening at any of the other properties other than one I own at, I wouldnt even be reading it , let alone commenting.



I think one of the reasons it has garnered so much interest is that it has repercussions for other Marriott owners elsewhere. I also think it is regrettable that OC owners look at it as something only OC owners are worthy to comment on, because many times an outsider can objectively assess a situation for everyone's benefit.

It appears to me that OC owners are perhaps too angered to look at things objectively and the reason why the naysayers are primarily non-owners is not that they want to stir the pot, so to speak, but because they are not directly affected cooler heads can prevail. 

Taking a threatening posture is rarely a way to foster cooperation and, unfortunately, Marriott has reacted to not so subtle threats. I think it will be a real uphill battle going forwards.


----------



## Luckybee

SueDonJ said:


> Well, that's your thought.  I simply don't share your view, and I'll continue to read and/or post here whenever the mood strikes me.  As far as I know, the moderators of this site do not have a problem with non-owners participating in this thread about the issues at Aruba Ocean Club.  I'm sure that if they did, we would have heard about it a long time ago.
> 
> You, on the other hand, take every opportunity to post about why you think non-owners shouldn't be here.  You'll forgive me, I hope, for not recognizing you as The Board Police.
> 
> And you don't have to speak for Marksue, or explain in any way why you think he may or may not contribute here.  He's proven his communication skills over and over again.



See this is the problem. Im not the board police but I just like other posters get quite tired of someone telling them how they should think. I am entitled to my opinion which happens to be as I previously indicated. You can post as you like but still isnt going to change my opinion. Furthermore I wouldnt begin to speak for Mark who I happen to think has done a great job(with a few mssteps perhaps but has those under control now . But when you say things like, "lovearuba, I followed that up with a post here to Marksue asking him to clarify the "contingency arrangement" with the attorney(s), as well as how the new arrangement with an Aruban attorney differed from the ongoing arrangement with a US attorney, and have yet to receive a response" as though it is Mark's obligation to tell you what the owners are doing/have done/or are planning on doing I for one find it a tad offensive. Perhaps I read it wrong but it came across to me as a sense of entitlement. Nothing was posted here in the beginning for entertainment value. It was posted here to allow owners who had no knowledge of the efforts being made on their behalf to become aware. Any owner who wishes info is getting/can get that info very easily. In a general way the info will continue to be posted here by Mark and others Im sure . Personally as an owner, I think the specifics are better left to be dealt with in the manner that Mark and the many others who are organizing this are doing so at present.


----------



## ecwinch

LuckyBee,

Have you ever stopped and wondered, why non-owners take the time and energy to post to this thread, or even read this thread?

And I do not think anyone has told you "what" to think. My posts are generally of two types:

To provide some balance to the inherent bias and help separate the verifiable facts from the rhetoric

To point out on flaws in the logic and approach. 

And I cannot speak for everyone that has done so, but I have legitimately done it in an effort to help the "crusade" refine the argument and to suggest strategy. If you think it is to tell what to think, I am sorry you read that into my posts.


----------



## lovearuba

*Agree with this*



m61376 said:


> I think one of the reasons it has garnered so much interest is that it has repercussions for other Marriott owners elsewhere. I also think it is regrettable that OC owners look at it as something only OC owners are worthy to comment on, because many times an outsider can objectively assess a situation for everyone's benefit.
> 
> It appears to me that OC owners are perhaps too angered to look at things objectively and the reason why the naysayers are primarily non-owners is not that they want to stir the pot, so to speak, but because they are not directly affected cooler heads can prevail.
> 
> Taking a threatening posture is rarely a way to foster cooperation and, unfortunately, Marriott has reacted to not so subtle threats. I think it will be a real uphill battle going forwards.


 
One of the last communications I received from Marriott indicated the reason surf club maintenance fees were less than they are was because the developing is staying paying into them.  Surf club owners are likely to be posting their own thread in the future, they should be interested in how this turns out.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> This has already been done, see the previous post.
> 
> Susan,
> 
> In the beginning we tried to do this without legal representation in an effort resolve this issue in a professional manner. With Marriott's lack of response and underhanded actions, as occurred at the board meeting, we have now retained legal representation both in Aruba and the US. The attorneys are doing the work on a contingency basis as there are multiple actions under way. There are multiple tracks taking place now and as I am permitted to share what is occurring I will post it. As papers are served and I am given the ok I will share what we are doing. But since Marriott does monitor this board I will not share what is planned until it is executed.


As I posted previously in this thread, there are ways to have a closed forum on Yahoo and otherwise if you only want to communicate and discuss with owners.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> One of the last communications I received from Marriott indicated the reason surf club maintenance fees were less than they are was because the developing is staying paying into them.  Surf club owners are likely to be posting their own thread in the future, they should be interested in how this turns out.


I think we all know that new resorts tend to have developer subsidies and I believe it's been common knowledge that Surf Club had such a subsidy as did Ocean Club during sales if I recall correctly.  I was under the impression that the subsidy at SC had either been reduced or eliminated but I do not know for certain.  Both OC and SC have had lower dues than similar resorts in HI and St. Kitts and comparable dues to many US mainland locations and as such are probably too low at present ignoring the SA.  Given the footprint and set up of the 2 resorts, I'd expect OC to be about $100 per unit more in maint fees over the long haul.  It seems you're wishing bad luck on others to make your point, to me all the more reason for other owners to read and participate in this thread.

As I noted earlier in this thread, one must ask themselves whether holding Marriott's and the BOD's feet to the fire is the most important issue or doing what's best for the members.  What are the potential end points, they are only a few and all but quitting are potentially costly to both sides.  I don't see this ever had a chance of being successful without legal action and I think it was a mistake not getting in with a good lawyer from day 1.  Had that been done appropriately, there likely would have been a very different outcome to date at a minimal cost.  Going forward, I see the only action available other than through the courts.  It may not get that far but I don't see any other way to proceed as you can only expect a settlement you'll be happy with if the other side thinks you have a reasonable chance of success legally.  That will cost money, both to those pushing the issue and to the resort itself which ultimately means all of the members.  In effect, you'll be paying for both sides of the fight.  It might or might not pay off from a $$$ standpoint, even if successful in principle.  And it's very possible that if pushed hard enough, Marriott will walk away from the resort.  Can you imagine the threads on TUG then?


----------



## dioxide45

lovearuba said:


> One of the last communications I received from Marriott indicated the reason surf club maintenance fees were less than they are was because the developing is staying paying into them.  Surf club owners are likely to be posting their own thread in the future, they should be interested in how this turns out.



According to the historical MF information from the FAQ, the last year that the SC had a developer subsidy was in 2007. As it was mentioned long ago in this thread in response to one of my posts, the likely cause to lower fees at SC is that there are four times as many owners there than at OC. There are certain fixed costs regardless of the size of a resort. Spreading those costs out over more owners takes each individual owners MF down.


----------



## lovearuba

*do you own there*



dioxide45 said:


> According to the historical MF information from the FAQ, the last year that the SC had a developer subsidy was in 2007. As it was mentioned long ago in this thread in response to one of my posts, the likely cause to lower fees at SC is that there are four times as many owners there than at OC. There are certain fixed costs regardless of the size of a resort. Spreading those costs out over more owners takes each individual owners MF down.


 

If you own there I can send you the letter that references it


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> See this is the problem. Im not the board police but I just like other posters get quite tired of someone telling them how they should think. I am entitled to my opinion which happens to be as I previously indicated. You can post as you like but still isnt going to change my opinion. Furthermore I wouldnt begin to speak for Mark who I happen to think has done a great job(with a few mssteps perhaps but has those under control now . But when you say things like, "lovearuba, I followed that up with a post here to Marksue asking him to clarify the "contingency arrangement" with the attorney(s), as well as how the new arrangement with an Aruban attorney differed from the ongoing arrangement with a US attorney, and have yet to receive a response" as though it is Mark's obligation to tell you what the owners are doing/have done/or are planning on doing I for one find it a tad offensive. Perhaps I read it wrong but it came across to me as a sense of entitlement. Nothing was posted here in the beginning for entertainment value. It was posted here to allow owners who had no knowledge of the efforts being made on their behalf to become aware. Any owner who wishes info is getting/can get that info very easily. In a general way the info will continue to be posted here by Mark and others Im sure . Personally as an owner, I think the specifics are better left to be dealt with in the manner that Mark and the many others who are organizing this are doing so at present.



See, I think this is the problem.  Marksue brought these issues here to this _discussion_ board, which I think logically means that the issues are open for discussion.  As has been said, repeatedly, everybody who posts here is contributing to the discussion, and I don't think that anybody feels as though they are required to do so.  Certainly I don't feel that way, but I do wonder why any of us would bother to join a discussion with the intent of not completing our thoughts.  That's just poor communication skills.

It appears to me that Marksue, in particular, wants to use this discussion board as a place to rant and rave and be illogical with the hope of stirring the crowd to a frenzy against anything and everything Marriott.  The trouble is, this format allows those of us who disagree with his opinions and/or actions to make our opinions known.  It doesn't mean that we expect folks to fall in lockstep with us, it just means that we disagree.  I can't speak for others, but the only _entitlement_ I feel is that it's not wrong for me to post in this discussion.  You disagree, that's your right, and you're entitled to say that fifty ways from Sunday whenever you choose.  But you should be prepared for whatever responses your posts generate.

As far as this latest go-round that spurred another of your "non-AOC owners don't count" posts, maybe you're confused about the progression of the discussion?  Lovearuba posted in response to JimC's "... one who is licensed to practice in Aruba ..." by copying a previous post of Marksue's which had been directed to me.  So I reiterated that I still had unanswered questions about the Aruban attorney arrangement, as evidenced by my follow-up to Marksue's post.  That's all - nothing in there about how anybody should immediately stop thinking their own thoughts and adopt mine, or any demand that Marksue immediately respond to me, or any sense of entitlement at all.  I'm simply one voice of many in this discussion.  As such, I will question and comment whenever I choose, and I will certainly respond to any posts which are specifically directed to me.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> One of the last communications I received from Marriott indicated the reason surf club maintenance fees were less than they are was because the developing is staying paying into them.  Surf club owners are likely to be posting their own thread in the future, they should be interested in how this turns out.





dioxide45 said:


> According to the historical MF information from the FAQ, the last year that the SC had a developer subsidy was in 2007. As it was mentioned long ago in this thread in response to one of my posts, the likely cause to lower fees at SC is that there are four times as many owners there than at OC. There are certain fixed costs regardless of the size of a resort. Spreading those costs out over more owners takes each individual owners MF down.





lovearuba said:


> If you own there I can send you the letter that references it



There's no need to be an owner at a specific resort to verify the financial information of that resort - anyone with a my-vacationclub.com account can view the info for all of the MVCI resorts.  If you look under the "Owners" tab at the Aruba Surf Club page, you'll find the 2009 Operating Budget (with no mention of a developer subsidy) as well as the statement that explains this year's 17.5% maintenance fee hike.


----------



## ecwinch

Dean said:


> It seems you're wishing bad luck on others to make your point, to me all the more reason for other owners to read and participate in this thread.



And in regard to the lawsuit, regardless of the outcome, the lawyers will get paid. It like that old joke where the lawyer goes in the bar and is all dejected. 

2nd lawyer: "Why are you so down?"

1st lawyer: "I lost a case today"

2nd lawyer: "Did you get paid"

1st lawyer: "Yes"

2nd lawyer: "Then YOU didn't lose"


----------



## m61376

lovearuba said:


> One of the last communications I received from Marriott indicated the reason surf club maintenance fees were less than they are was because the developing is staying paying into them.  Surf club owners are likely to be posting their own thread in the future, they should be interested in how this turns out.



Since you quoted me above this post, I am assuming that this was intended because we own at the SC. Whether we own at the SC or any other Marriott, for reasons I stated before it affects all owners, because what happens here sets a precedent. I also fear that by backing the BOD and Marriott into a corner, so to speak, there likely will be repercussions at other resorts as Marriott may feel it is necessary to assume somewhat of a defensive posture in general.

That said, it is likely that the person that sent you that communication misspoke and was unaware that the developer subsidy has ended at the SC. As pointed out, there are 454 villas at the SC compared to how many at the OC (I think Dioxide may have been a little off by the four times, but the assumption is still correct)? Each resort has a single general manager and single heads of other departments. The SC now has 5 check-in days to better distribute housekeeping staff. They each have similarly manned pool and beach towel huts. They each have concierge desks, etc.. Likely there is a slew of other personnel which probably are either the same or only slightly more in number. Staffing cost for non maintenance and housekeeping personnel is likely considerably less per villa at the SC than at the OC and even though the SC requires more housekeeping and maintenance staff scheduling complete coverage is easier with more personnel and I'd venture to guess there are some cost savings there as well. 

Additionally, even things like real estate lease costs and taxes would be less per villa because the SC is double the height. The units are newer and built to newer engineering specs (aside from the other issues at the OC) which would likely make its utility costs and maintenance issues less.

Although a lot of OC owners criticize the SC's size, the number of owners helps considerably to streamline costs. So, while I may be hiding my head in the sand like an ostrich, I don't think SC owners are likely to be posting a similar thread in the near future as you suggest. Nevertheless, as a Marriott owner, I am very interested in how this develops. How Marriott deals with OC owners reflects, to a certain degree, how they value owners in general and, on the flip side, how OC owners engage Marriott sets a tone for how Marriott will be forced to react if/when problems crop up at other resorts.


----------



## Dean

ecwinch said:


> And in regard to the lawsuit, regardless of the outcome, the lawyers will get paid. It like that old joke where the lawyer goes in the bar and is all dejected.
> 
> 2nd lawyer: "Why are you so down?"
> 
> 1st lawyer: "I lost a case today"
> 
> 2nd lawyer: "Did you get paid"
> 
> 1st lawyer: "Yes"
> 
> 2nd lawyer: "Then YOU didn't lose"


Exactly.  IMO a well placed lawyer up front could have avoided where this is going now.  Marriott offered to cover, what roughly half of the extra costs if I recall (please correct me as I'm going by memory and wasn't totally sure the amounts even when posted).  A good lawyer involved up front could have likely gotten 70-80% of those total dollars (20-30% more) for a minimal investment.  It likely would have come with a confidentiality agreement which I'm not sure could be assured though though I doubt Marriott would have gone after anyone that wasn't too blatant.  A legal battle will likely end up about even to where the compromise was offered after costs are removed including legal expenses.  However, that doesn't take into account the legal costs on the other side which will be footed mostly by the OC owners.  I wonder if Marriott's agreement has a hold harmless clause that requires the resort cover their legal costs, win or lose, I'm betting it does.  Even with a total win and Marriott covers all the costs "out of the goodness of their hearts", you can bet they'll get it all back over time just like an insurance company does plus there's still the legal fees and distrust.  The more I think about this, the only way this can end where the group is happy is to separate from Marriott.  I don't see any way to get back to a workable level of trust otherwise.


----------



## ecwinch

Dean said:


> Exactly.  IMO a well placed lawyer up front could have avoided where this is going now.  Marriott offered to cover, what roughly half of the extra costs if I recall (please correct me as I'm going by memory and wasn't totally sure the amounts even when posted).  A good lawyer involved up front could have likely gotten 70-80% of those total dollars (20-30% more) for a minimal investment.



Various numbers have been reported 43, 47, and 48%.

And as much as I would like to think you are correct, it would not have mattered here. You had a dissident BoD member who had an agenda. As soon as he was removed as BoD President, the fecal matter hit the oscillating air cooler. 

Compare the following:

Jan 14, 2008 - BoD adopts resolution to give MVCI time to respond, or they will file legal action

Date BoD decided to not pursue lawsuit: ?  I think this was summer

Date Allan was removed from BoD Presidency: ? At the annual meeting ? Sept

Oct 1, 2008 - Date the crusade started

From Mark's second post - 

"_I actually spoke with Alan and he is the one that suggested getting people togehter and trying to find an attorney to start a class action._"


For Mark's third post in this thread:

"_That is exactly right. MVCI should be paying for the roof and structural repairs and not pass those costs on to the owners. If they were to* lose the suit *they would not be able to pass those costs on to the owners._"

For his post 11/1/2009:

"_Just so you are aware Allan has nothing to do with the the proposition for a class action suit, he never suggested it and as a board memeber would not be one to initiate the suit_"


----------



## ecwinch

*Here is some transparency for you....*

This is part of Dirk Schavemaker letter to Ocean Club members.

As referenced in information previously sent to you in the 2009 Annual Maintenance Fee statement as well as the Board's annual letter, Marriott Vacation Club International retained independent consultants to conduct a thorough review of building conditions and to make recommendations regarding building maintenance. Marriott Vacation Club International’s leadership has been in contact with the Aruba Ocean Club Board of Directors throughout this process, and the independent consultants engaged by Marriott Vacation Club International have also provided reports of their findings to the Board. We anticipate that the Board will make these reports available to all Aruba Ocean Club Owners through the Association website: www.arubaoceanclub.com *no later than the first week of June.*

Furthermore, Marriott Vacation Club International recently provided a letter to the Aruba Ocean Club Board of Directors summarizing the current status of all current building matters, and *a copy of this letter will also be posted on the Association website*. We encourage Owners with questions regarding the information posted on the website to contact the Board of Directors or Corey Guest, the resort General Manager.

And the respective reports are on the web site also as promised. Here is the statement on the roof:

Although AOC realized approximately 10 years of useful life from the original roof, MYCI paid
for a prorated 5/14ths of the roof replacement cost to account for the approximately 5-year period the concrete skeleton and roof of the current AOC building were idle prior to full development of the resort.

And corrosion:

Further, HA Associates confirmed that the mansard roof metal frames do not have significant corrosion affecting the capacities of the structure.

And windows:

While the window manufacturer provided the replacement windows under their warranty,
the manufacturer did not pay for the international shipping, duties, taxes and installation of these windows. MYCI offered to pay these costs at no charge to the Cooperative Association.

In 2009, MYCI, as a gesture of goodwill, ordered 500 additional windows for the Cooperative
Association as attic stock and had them delivered to the site.


----------



## Eric

More speculation without facts. Marriott pays fees for UNSOLD units. They don't supplement sold units. 



lovearuba said:


> One of the last communications I received from Marriott indicated the reason surf club maintenance fees were less than they are was because the developing is staying paying into them.  Surf club owners are likely to be posting their own thread in the future, they should be interested in how this turns out.


----------



## ecwinch

Eric said:


> More speculation without facts. Marriott pays fees for UNSOLD units. They don't supplement sold units.



That is correct. I think LoveAruba was referring to developer subsidies to the resort for common areas


----------



## Eric

yes and its in proportion to unsold units, not sold units 



ecwinch said:


> That is correct. I think LoveAruba was referring to developer subsidies to the resort for common areas


----------



## dioxide45

m61376 said:


> (I think Dioxide may have been a little off by the four times, but the assumption is still correct)? .



454 at SC
125 at OC
Approximatly 3.6 more at the SC than OC. I was close.


----------



## ecwinch

I think that merits a deduction of 500 posts from your total.

Close is not good enough in math, and only counts in hand grenades.


----------



## Dean

ecwinch said:


> And as much as I would like to think you are correct, it would not have mattered here. You had a dissident BoD member who had an agenda. As soon as he was removed as BoD President, the fecal matter hit the oscillating air cooler.


You never know what would have happened of course.  And there were two issues, one could argue whether one helped or hurt the other, likely a little of both.  These were the SA and development issues, the other the intricacies within the BOD and between the BOD and the owners there.  I'm still of the opinion had the group had good and appropriate legal representation before any real confrontations started, the outcome could have been much better, in that sense the BOD conflict was likely a major negative.  The fact that Marriott was willing to cover roughly half suggests they would have been amenable to a well placed proposal, likely with an in between compromise if handled well.  One could also argue it is an admission of guilt I suppose which should be one of the main points if this does go forward.  A few hundred dollars likely could have gotten Marriott up to roughly 70% in all likelihood, the best overall outcome for the owners there.  Given the age of the roof this would have been essentially full price for the roof itself taking into account the life of a roof and how long it had been in place.  This would not have accounted for other damage that might have been caused that is beyond the SA and normal maint.  The other issue which was alluded to earlier is that any member of the BOD who were to participate in a lawsuit as a whistle blower better dang sure hope for a total victory in said lawsuit or a total cave by the resort and BOD else they're almost certainly looking at a civil action by MVCI and the resort.  Even if this is the end of it other than some unhappy folks, I don't think said ex BOD member is totally out of the woods.  I'm not saying this to bash anyone and it's certainly not a suggestion on my part that it should happen, I'm merely pointing out the obvious.  I doubt the directors insurance would apply in this situation.


----------



## lovearuba

Eric said:


> More speculation without facts. Marriott pays fees for UNSOLD units. They don't supplement sold units.


 
"We definitely have the same thoughts as you do with the rising costs. 2009 maintenance fees were driven by several increases beyond anyone’s control, including in utility costs, water expenses and inflation in Aruba. The additional repair cost of hurricane Omar was also unanticipated. We have also been faced with a good bit of deferred maintenance from prior spending decisions. We are aware that Marriott’s Aruba Surf Club’s fees increased substantially year-over-year; maintenance fees at that property may still be lower due to the size of the resort and costs can be spread greater; also, the property is not fully sold out and units are therefore still subsidized by Marriott." 

Eric, I'm not sure what your point is on my statement but maybe you can read the precise wording (above) that you think I misinterpreted and let me know how I did that. To me its pretty clear that units are subsidized by Marriott.


----------



## Eric

The point is you don't understand what the subsidizing means. Basically Marriott pays the fees for unsold units, thats it. There is no evidence to prove that once they stop doing this, fees will go up. Dave has posted many times to verify this information. 



lovearuba said:


> "We definitely have the same thoughts as you do with the rising costs. 2009 maintenance fees were driven by several increases beyond anyone’s control, including in utility costs, water expenses and inflation in Aruba. The additional repair cost of hurricane Omar was also unanticipated. We have also been faced with a good bit of deferred maintenance from prior spending decisions. We are aware that Marriott’s Aruba Surf Club’s fees increased substantially year-over-year; maintenance fees at that property may still be lower due to the size of the resort and costs can be spread greater; also, the property is not fully sold out and units are therefore still subsidized by Marriott."
> 
> Eric, I'm not sure what your point is on my statement but maybe you can read the precise wording (above) that you think I misinterpreted and let me know how I did that. To me its pretty clear that units are subsidized by Marriott.


----------



## dioxide45

ecwinch said:


> I think that merits a deduction of 500 posts from your total.
> 
> Close is not good enough in math, and only counts in hand grenades.



I did indicate 4 times as many owners. Since we don't know how many multiple week owners there are at each individual resort it truely could be closer to 4x. Now my last example provided specific ownership weeks but my original post indicated actual owners


----------



## dioxide45

Eric said:


> The point is you don't understand what the subsidizing means. Basically Marriott pays the fees for unsold units, thats it. There is no evidence to prove that once they stop doing this, fees will go up. Dave has posted many times to verify this information.



So it works like this?

Owners pay the MF up front for all units, sold and unsold? At the end of the year Marriott then pays the MF for those unsold units and that gets paid back to the owners through the HOA and it becomes the developer subsidy people see in their MF bill? When the resort sells out owners don't see that subsidy in their MF?

I need to understand this more because there are almost always some unsold units but the developer subsidy are not always there, and the developer subsidy usually goes away before the unit is completly sold out.


----------



## Eric

People always think the developer is paying the subsidy to artifically lower the owners fees which is not the case. It in place to pay for unsold units which are the developers responsibility. 



dioxide45 said:


> So it works like this?
> 
> Owners pay the MF up front for all units, sold and unsold? At the end of the year Marriott then pays the MF for those unsold units and that gets paid back to the owners through the HOA and it becomes the developer subsidy people see in their MF bill? When the resort sells out owners don't see that subsidy in their MF?
> 
> I need to understand this more because there are almost always some unsold units but the developer subsidy are not always there, and the developer subsidy usually goes away before the unit is completly sold out.


----------



## Dave M

For subsidies, here's how it works. And, no, Eric, Marriott doesn't always pay MFs for unsold weeks. It doesn't need to.

During the early years of resort sales, Marriott contributes cash to the HOA as a subsidy. If it didn't, the owners would have an extremely high MF in those early years. As a ridiculous example, assume that Marriott sells only 100 weeks in the first year and the HOA expenditure budget for that year is $1,000,000. Without a subsidy, the MF for that year would be $10,000 for each owner!

As Marriott makes more sales, the subsidy is gradually phased out. Even though not all weeks have been sold, the HOA becomes self-sustaining without a Marriott subsidy. As still more weeks are sold, expenses (housekeeping, repairs, utilities, etc.) increase and the higher expenses are paid for by the MFs on the additional weeks sold. 

Marriott's subsidy for Surf Club ended in 2008. You can log in to MVCI and look at the financial budget on the Surf Club owner's site and see that all revenues now come from MFs. Compare that to (for example) the budget for St. Kitts, which as a newer resort, still has a line item for "Developer Subsidy (credit) in the 2009 budget.


----------



## m61376

dioxide45 said:


> I did indicate 4 times as many owners. Since we don't know how many multiple week owners there are at each individual resort it truely could be closer to 4x. Now my last example provided specific ownership weeks but my original post indicated actual owners



 good save.

I apologize- I actually thought there were more than 125 villas at the OC (wouldn't be the first or last time I was wrong though  ).

It doesn't matter how many multiple week owners though, since each owned week incurs the same MF regardless of how many weeks owned.


----------



## SueDonJ

dioxide45 said:


> I did indicate 4 times as many owners. Since we don't know how many multiple week owners there are at each individual resort it truely could be closer to 4x. Now my last example provided specific ownership weeks but my original post indicated actual owners





Dave M said:


> As a ridiculous example, assume that Marriott sells only 100 weeks in the first year and the HOA expenditure budget for that year is $1,000,000. Without a subsidy, the MF for that year would be $10,000 for each owner!



Oh great - a surprise math quiz this morning.  I hate when that happens.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> ... We are aware that Marriott’s Aruba Surf Club’s fees increased substantially year-over-year ...



Using the figures for 2BR l/o units, a quick look at the Maintenance Fee FAQ proves that what's said above about the Surf Club's fees (and the implication for Ocean Club's) is true.  For the years 2005 - 2008, fees increased $247.50, an average of $82.53 per year, not counting the $306.51 developer subsidies.  Add those in and that's a total over three years of $554.01 with an average of $184.67 per year.

Contrast that with Ocean Club's history for the years 2001 - 2008, when fees increased in total over seven years $399.59, only an average of $57.08 per year with no developer subsidies.

Considering that there are fewer owners at Ocean Club than Surf Club it's really not surprising at all that the Ocean Club's fees would at some point need to be increased substantially to cover the years of insufficient collections.  It's just too bad that it had to happen this year, when it's also time for villa refurbishment and property restoration.

Now I know somebody (hello, Dave) will correct the figures if I'm wrong here, but if I'm not then I want Extra Credit points.


----------



## m61376

More figures- I was right - OC has 218 units, Surf has 450. I had thought it was closer to double the number of units.

Where the confusion is I think is that there are proportionally more keyed rooms at the SC because all the villas are lock-outs (2 and 3BR's) and the OC has 1BR and 2BR lock-outs). But the number of villas is about twice the number.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> "We definitely have the same thoughts as you do with the rising costs. 2009 maintenance fees were driven by several increases beyond anyone’s control, including in utility costs, water expenses and inflation in Aruba. The additional repair cost of hurricane Omar was also unanticipated. We have also been faced with a good bit of deferred maintenance from prior spending decisions. We are aware that Marriott’s Aruba Surf Club’s fees increased substantially year-over-year; maintenance fees at that property may still be lower due to the size of the resort and costs can be spread greater; also, the property is not fully sold out and units are therefore still subsidized by Marriott."
> 
> Eric, I'm not sure what your point is on my statement but maybe you can read the precise wording (above) that you think I misinterpreted and let me know how I did that. To me its pretty clear that units are subsidized by Marriott.



Drum roll please.... I agree with LoveAruba.

I am assuming that this is some e-mail or letter from the OC BoD. It is possible that the author could be misunderstanding what Marriott's subsidy entails.

Just because someone says it, does not make it a fact. Otherwise the OC would be shut down for being a safety hazard due to all the corrosion and building issues.


----------



## ecwinch

Eric said:


> People always think the developer is paying the subsidy to artifically lower the owners fees which is not the case. It in place to pay for unsold units which are the developers responsibility.



I agree. But sometimes it is exactly what people think, that the developer is subsidizing the common amenities to keep m/f low. That is the reason that most states require that developer subsidies be disclosed in the Public Offering Statement (that huge stack of paperwork you get when you buy from a developer).

For instance, I did an RCI exchange into the Tahati Village in Las Vegas. It away from the main part of the strip, so the resort offers a shuttle to the casinos. Leaves every 30 minutes - big huge vans.

Now when that resort is completely sold, I doubt that owners will continue to fund that indulgence. But the timeshare weasels sell that "feature" as if it will be there forever.


----------



## marksue

*Allan's Letter pt 1*

A Lesson to all Time Share Owners

Dear Owner:   I would like to respond to the two recent messages you received from Marriott Vacation Club International (MVCI), one from the three Officers of the Board of Directors of the Aruba Ocean Club (AOC) and the other from Dirk Schavemaker, Senior VP (MVCI).  

Both messages comment on efforts made by hundreds of Owners, including myself, seeking a fair and reasonable solution to the issues that plague the AOC. Their attempt to instill fear and discredit the efforts of all of the responding Owners is inexcusable and their attempt to insinuate that my motive is to discredit Marriott is erroneous and without merit. As an Owner of  3 Marriott Vacation Club properties and a small investor in Marriott, I have always been an advocate of the professionalism of the Marriott organization and have been a dedicated volunteer serving what I think are the best interests of all the Owners.   

I have joined the Concerned Owners Group and until we have access to all AOC owners, whose contact information MVCI and the Board control, we request that you share this information with all fellow Owners you know.  Whether or not you wish to join the concerned Owners group, the information we provide should be of interest to you.  I apologize if you have sold your villa but still are receiving this correspondence.  (If that is the case, please reply saying REMOVE -  If you have names of other interested owners, please forward to me. Thank you, Allan  c20854@aol.com or 301-299-2118) 

I do not feel a need to defend myself,  but I will share you with one small fact. I live in Potomac, MD, the home of Mr. Marriott, his family and hundreds of Marriott employees. I have received the Potomac Citizen of the Year award twice, incl uding 2008, for my volunteer efforts on behalf of the community. Why would my community give me this award twice while Marriott's MVCI Management demean my efforts in representing Owner interests as President and seek to discredit my efforts on behalf of all AOC Owners?I always believed in the Marriott name and respected the high caliber of many of their employees, many who have been friends for years, but when I see major problems and possible misrepresentations, I feel that as an officer, Board member and Owner, it is my obligation to address them.  

I accepted my role as a Board member and President of the AOC with the same enthusiasm as I have always brought to my community volunteer efforts. Unfortunately, I shoulder some of the blame for the situation we now all find ourselves in, because as a loyal Marriott customer/Owner, I accepted everything they said as fact. Now after finding out that I was misled regarding the lack of disclosures, the condition of the building and issues related to lost revenue, MVCI acting with the current Board made sure that my tenure as President and a Board member was short lived.

I would not waste my time making a plea to Mr. Marriott, Mr. Sorenson and the entire Marriott International Board of Directors at the recent annual meeting in Washington if I did not think that they intended to resolve this in a fair manner.  Unfortunately, they have evaded this responsibility and left it up to the MVCI division. MVCI in turn has taken on the mission to filter all Owner communications, stop open Owner debate, and control the recent Board of Directors elections.  All the Owners’ emails to Mr. Sorenson have been responded to by Dirk at MVCI with a form letter containing some of the same old and inaccurate MVCI statements . 

Marriott Intern ational should realize that this is like putting salt on a wound.  The MVCI staff now on hand at the Aruba Ocean Club need not take our questioning personally;  the problems were not caused by them directly and are beyond their sphere of control. No one blames them. Most were not even around when the AOC was built, and they act in a courteous, responsive and professional manner.  Yet it seems from Owner comments that some, even “our” GM has taken sides in these issues, and rather than working for all the owners, he and some of his staff are pitting one Owner against another. They are being paid by all the Owners and should not take sides, just do their job of running the resort on a daily basis as professionals and not get caught in defending previous actions of MVCI or the Board. 

The Board Officers and MVCI are trying to intimidate owners with threats; but in spite of what they say litigation and negative press will hurt Marriott, worldwide, far more than it will hurt the owners, if they continue to walk away from their responsibility.  Litigation or 3rd party intervention is not a preferred route; but we are prepared to go that way since Marriott continues to refuse to adequately address the problems. They can force us to take that route; or they can act responsibly.

I will continue to try to get Marriott International involved, but let's look at the history of the issues.  My fall from MVCI'S graces began after I exposed the questionable MVCI practices at the expense of AOC Owners. (See list below.)  While some Owners consider that they have abundant grounds to sue for misma nagement and observe that MVCI management has provided some very questionable oversight., I want to gather all the facts  and try to resolve the issues fairly.

Even the Board threat to some Owners that Marriott might “leave” is unfounded. I am not seeking that solution and I feel it is far from likely.  What kind of message would that give to othe r Vacation Clubs should they challenge Marriott?  With the Surf Club on one side and the Marriott Hotel on the other, as well as Mr. Marriott signing a feasibility agreement with the government last month for the Ritz next to the Hotel - I do not see that they would pull their flag for any reason.  But, even if they did, there are many other high quality brands (like Hyatt, Hilton, or Westin to name a few) who could jump at the opportunity to put their flag in Aruba on the Ocean Club.  

If Marriott's name had not been on the Aruba Ocean Club building, I would safely say that a majority of us, including myself, would not be Owners today.  It is with the belief that the Marriott name means something that I had asked Marriott International to convene an independent meeting in Washington with a group of concerned owners to resolve these issues. The recent hard ball tactics that MVCI staff have taken, most recently by controlling the AOC annual meeting and election, has only led to an increase in the number of concerned Owners. 

We must get back on track and while MVCI and the current Board continue to instill fear that we the Owners will suffer (more than we are suffering now?)  if we request third party intervention and representation, be aware that everything MVCI does-- it does with the backing supposedly of legal representation.

If I have learned one thing, that is that we should not just accept MVCI's statements as gospel.  Every Owner document we have seen has been drafted, written and signed by Marriott, since no Owners existed at the time AOC was created.  Since there were no arm's length transactions, just one Marriott company to another,  we must ensure now that we are fully informed and protected.  We pay every dime for upkeep of this building and for Management's salaries, yet have little control over how much and to whom. 

As one Owner pointed out - the Board and I are also to blame. This is true and I accept some blame. She asked why, when the Board was turned over a few years ago from being a Developer's Board to an Owners-controlled Board, we did not do what every major company does when they buy a property, in other words hire an outside company to do due diligence and review everything that they are purc hasing.  That is a great question and an excellent suggestion.  Unfortunately, I do not know of any of the 50 other Marriott Vacations Clubs ever even considering this, but it has become clear that in the future all Time Share Boards should do it.  As a Surf Club Owner also, I urge their Board as the owners take over to consider this immediately. Perhaps problems like those at the AOC can be avoided if appropriate disclosures are forthcoming.

President Frank Knox in his June letter to Owners stated that "After thoroughly reviewing all of these reports, your Board of Directors believes that our building is in good condition and that, combined with our total villa renovation this fall, we will have a first class facility we can be proud of".  Again, we must not forget that we the Owners have been paying for (as our sales agreements state) a "first class resort" all along- as that is what we paid for in the first place, but it appears we never purchased one, but had to personally make additional and substantial payments to make it one. 

Our management team was hired and we paid to insure that our facility was always maintained to that standard.  It is obvious from their own consultant reports that it was not.   How much repair and maintenance costs currently and during the past 9 years have we had to pay to meet the standards that were sold to us to begin with?   Who is paying for all the repairs noted in MVCI's consultant report including the $750,000 estimate to re caulk the building?  Who is paying for all the repairs that the consultant reports stated were caused from "historical roof leaks" or from unknown causes?  We the Owners?

Having reviewed the reports posted this week on our Owners web site www.arubaoceanclub.com - I find them encouraging, but it is clear that most of the leaks are caused as noted from "historical water infiltration.” We the Owners spent over $70,000 for our own consultant, a highly respected mold and environmental expert Sanit-Air (also an Owner), who along with her two structural engineers worked very hard to review what blue prints were made available as well as te sting and making observations to ensure that our building met the highest standard.  I find it very disturbing that the Board and MVCI have not shared their actual reports and photos and instead drafted a three-paragraph summary.  While MVCI's experts may be qualified, it is MVCI that got us to where we are today: with a building that needed a new roof, new windows, new caulking, and according to Owners and many employees has leaked in some areas since it was built.  One point noted by our consultants, yet not addressed, is that our new roof is not mechanically fastened per manufacturers requirements.  We must insist that MVCI have Zurich Insurance and all their warranty providers acknowledge that they accept full responsibility in maintaining this warranty with this knowledge.


----------



## marksue

*Allans letter pt 2*

Perhaps the most important issue is to correct the underlying causes of water intrusion.  You will note the large disclaimer from MVCI's mold expert – placing the burden for the final outcome on our Management team if they do not maintain the building properly then we will have possible water intrusion and mold problems on a regular basis.  Their track record is not good, and we the owners must ensure that the job is done correctly.  Only with independent review and oversight can we break the pattern of failure. We cannot rely on MVCI expertise alone.

With all the funds that we as Owners have been paying for the general maintenance and repair of this Building over the last ten years, we should not have had to do all these repairs and we should not have to pay for all this.  How much is this work going to cost and who is paying for the work recommended by these consultant's reports?  There are still questions that remain to be asked of our consultants. When they reviewed the limited blueprints they were permitted to see, "Did the blueprints show things that were specified for construction of our building but that may n ot have been included in the building?  If so, what effect might it have on the life of the building?”  We must seek the entire reports, environmental and structural, including photographs taken by our consultant team led by Connie Morback and her engineers.. We paid for these reports, after all. yet, I understand the Board had Connie sign a confidentiality agreement similar to what MVCI uses so that she cannot disclose them.

At a minimum we should request that Connie and her structural engineers provide a statement to owners (unedited by the Board or MVCI) commenting on what MVCI and the Board have presented to us as it relates to the environmental and structural integrity of our Building.

Why the board refused to share Connie's reports and those of her structural engineer is a mystery, if we all have the same best interest of the owners in mind.   If everything is fine, which would be best for all - then we can put this to rest.  If not, then we have a right to know what additional information, repairs,upgrades etc. are necessary.

At the annual meeting I asked MVCI to give Owners a hold-harmless agreement to cover all the current work underway and make Marriott/MVCI responsible for all this work caused by historical leaks and any present and future damages that may be caused by any further failures. This request was defeated because of the lack of support by the Board and MVCI.  I guess neither intends to stand behind the construction. 

Also, at the Annual Meeting Marriott announced that they had purchased back 115 weeks from Owners. Is this a good thing?  With Marriott's 40% commission many Owners, although happy to get out from future costs, still question the value received, but we all understand it was their decision. If the strategy of MVCI is to buy back units at distressed prices and resell them at a high market rate once the facility is back in shape (having been paid for by the past Owners), then unfortunately they may be successful because 100's more villas are for sale -- by individuals who love Aruba and the AOC, but must leave because of the escalating costs. I had asked the Board to allow owners to vote on the timing of all discretionary expenditures, to keep this year’s maintenance fee more manageable. They refused. Now, while we hope we will have a beautiful resort in 2 years after the completion of the repairs and the refurbishment, we undoubtedly will have lost many dedicated and devoted Owners. And Marriott, instead of being responsible as the Developer, will simply have another windfall and control more votes as owner.

We now have sought legal representation in Aruba since this was the only alternative that MVCI and this Board left us based on their conduct.  Our legal counsel will be communicating with you directly to inform you of our next steps and give you an opportunity to respond.  

We are seeking a method to contact all AOC Owners to make them aware of the situation and are seeking reasonable answers regarding the building.  We must find out how much Owners have paid for repairs and maintenance and what disclosures about the AOC facility were Owners made aware of.. 

MVCI and the Board are now trying to pressure our Counsel to withdraw - is there no end to th is outrageous and unconscionable behavior.   He has been informed that unless he withdraws from representing us, they will pursue legal action.  What possible information could our Counsel know or find out from MVCI's actions at the AOC that the Board would not want every Owner to be aware of?  Why would the current AOC Board spend Owner funds to fight other Owners over issues with the developer?  Whom are they protecting? .  

I can only again issue a plea to Marriott International and its Corporate Board of Directors to conduct an investigation into this situation. Stop the hard ball tactics of MVCI and, in the corporate conscience that Marriott has been built on, move forward in good faith now and address our concerns.  Time is of the essence.

Unfortunately, the AOC Board has lost the confidence of the owners as demonstrated by the recent election which rejected the reelection bid of Frank Knox were it not for Marriott casting it's B and owner votes. I stand ready to work with our Owners and Marriott to resolve these problems.

I will continue to welcome your phone calls and emails. We owners must work together to defend ourselves.   Thank you.

Sincerely,
Allan S. Cohen


----------



## marksue

*Allan's letter pt 3*

P. S.  One time share owners recent comment:.  "The majority certainly know about the special assessment and care about that. They also likely have zero idea about the brouhaha here and even if they knew wouldn't react. The only area that really gets owners attention is when it hits their wallet. Most know little to nothing about the workings of the Board/Management and aren't going to lift a finger to figure it out. That's just the way it is in timeshare - a fact all too well known by developers and used to their maximum advantage in most cases."

Some 20 questionable actions by MVCI and disturbing questions that they have not satisfactorily addressed  -- are listed below.  For pursuing these issues, my tenure as Board President was terminated.

This is in summary of my fall from MVCI grace's and if anyone wants more details and backup, please contact me at C20854@aol.com or call me at 301-299-2118.

1. After Owners questions, my discovery that the Owners did not receive revenue from the rental space in the lobby for past years.  Once this was disclosed, MVCI issued the Association a check for over $100,000 in lost revenue from the De Palm tours and Red Sail desks.  My seeking interest during this period irritated MVCI, but only after many months of asking did they pay an additional amount to the Owners for lost interest "as a good will gesture".

2.  My continued questioning as to why Owners did not receive any revenue for 9 years from the Hertz desk in our lobby.  (Their contract provided two vehicles for use by the resort staff and no cash).  National was paying over $5,000 per month at the Surf Club for a desk plus vehicles. After going out to bid, now the Owners receive two vehicles as well as over $7,000 per month for one desk for auto rental.  I questioned why under the original contract with Hertz we did not receive any cash, I asked to see the Marriott Hotel rental contract and see what cash payments the Hotel was receiving from Hertz for the last nine years, for comparison. This request was refused. I questioned whether this contract was i n the best interest of the Owners?

3. My continued request for recovery of lost revenue from the 2-4 Marriott Sales desks in the Lobby for the last 9 years.  We had received zero dollars and while Marriott's lawyers contend that they have a right to get this space free, our legal counsel see's this differently.  Marriott now is paying $500 per month or $6000 per year for this space.  I contend that 2-4 desks for Sales is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars on the Island. We may have lost over $1 million dollars in revenue. Only a third party can decide.  While the Aruba Ocean Club units have been sold out for years, and they are selling the Surf Club, MVCI contends that they have sold hundreds of re-sales from these desks which helps Owners. To a far greater extent it profits MVCI, as it also provided millions of dollars to MVCI with their 40% commission.  I ask, is $500 a month with no payment for the past nine years a fair rent for 4 desks when the least amount we currently receive is $2,000 per month per desk?

4. After Owner complaints and my continued inquiries about the condition of the Building and roof. After seeing for myself the flooding that occurred in the lobby, 2nd floor area, as well as the rear patio two years ago at 4 a.m., I was impressed by the staff's response and thanked them for all the hard work, but was shocked when they stated that "this happens every time we have a good rain".  I had been told by many Owners that our Building leaked very badly, but was constantly reassured by MVCI management that this only "happens when a Felix-type event happens" referring to the 100+ year storm.  Marriott Sales staff now disclose that they have used buckets for years by their desks to catch the water and our front desk staff have stated that they had leaks since the building opened.  This was all reconfirmed only after the Board hired their own consultant to review water intrusion as well as structural issues with our Building.  Our consultant is a well respected expert as well as an Owners.  MVCI spent thousands of dollars and hired their own consultant to follow our Consultants around.  The capacity of roof drains as well as underground storage tanks for run off were in question. While I was still an elected Board member (but removed from the Presidency), the new Officers refused to share any reports on the Building condition with me only with MVCI. 

According to our GM it has cost Owners over $70,000 dollars to hire our own consultants, yet their initial and final reports have not been shared to this day.  I witnessed thousands of dollars of unnecessary consultant time because MVCI did not give our consultants correct building blueprints or requested material in a timely manner.  I was told that all requests had to go thru Marriott legal before dissemination.   

Two examples: The wall behind the front desk, when cut into by our consultants, shows that the sheet rock and studs go into the ground and no water barrier was ever installed.  No wonder it leaked and had mold issues since the building was opened (according to staff).  When our consultants showed me the front atrium windows that we had replaced jus t a few years ago, anyone could have observed that they were poorly installed and not maintained.  Upon our arrival MVCI had removed all the sheet rock on the interior walls on floors 2-6 because of the leaks.  Mold remediation was underway. We had Stephen Rudner of Robert Darvas Associates, a structural engineer, as part of Connie Morbach's Santi-Air team who poured over blue prints of the building and raised questions.   Additional items questioned were the roof drainage as well as the underground storage capacity and the lack of mechanical fastening of the new roof as required by the Mfg.  Yet the new Board has refused to ask our structural consultant to follow up and are using Marriott's consultants’ reports only.  

AOC Owners should insist that our own consultants present their final comments on MVCI's responses and the work being done.   My continued questioning about the lack of adequate oversight did not make MVCI happy, yet we the Owners are paying for all these repairs.

5. After the concerns noted in #4, I requested our Board attorney to draft a list=2 0of issues we had with MVCI and stated that unless they are responded to immediately, then it will be turned over to our legal counsel for action.  It was only after the passage of this Board resolution on January 14, 2008 that MVCI had the roof looked at and produced a report stating that it must be replaced immediately because it was holding water which weight it had not be designed for and could risk total failure.  It was also at that time that MVCI disclosed that the roof had been on the building for at least 5 years prior to any sales and never disclosed to Owners.  Since other issues were still pending from the January 14, resolution and the threat of legal action was the only thing that seemed to work with MVCI.  I also had our attorney prepare a similar motion for possible consideration at our November 2008 meeting.  This confidential memo was wrongfully obtained by MVCI to their displeasure.    

6. My sharing the discovery of information with Owners gathered by one of our Owners from Aruba's Historical Records about our building that stated:  "...Before construction was completed, they ran out of money, the Italian contractors had left without notice and the unfinished buildings were left empty for years, like modern time ruins. The government was even considering blowing up the skeletons when hotel magnate Marriott took care of them." - www.historiadiaruba.aw/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=39&lang=en   I have been accused of sharing too much information with Owners. By contrast, this Board passed a secrecy resolution threatening any Board member providing information of being sued personally.   I believe that Owners are entitled to information, we all own the AOC together.

7. After hearing from other Vacation Club Boards and our Owners that the Management fee structure is unreasonable - Several years ago our board voted to request a change in management fee structure from a 10% of all funds collected to a flat rate with an inflation factor.  This is allowed in our B y-Laws, but only if Management agrees.  They did not, but assured us that they would be presenting a new method within a year. Nothing to date. What this means is that Management receives 10 cents on every dollar we collect.  If the government adds a $1.00 tax, we must pay Management an additional 10 cents per our contract.  On our assessment of $14 million dollars for our ten year refurbishment Marriott is entitled to $1.4 under the current contract.  Our reserves were so poorly funded that MVCI, the “experts,” should have known that we were severely under funded.  Every year MVCI would recommend a reserve figure and the Board every year supported it 100%.  As some Owners have pointed out, if the reserve funding had been increased from day one - MVCI would have had to pay millions of dollars on the unsold villas.  Since we contracted with MVCI to do our 10 year refurbishment, and as I have been informed that they have waived management fees on refurbishments at other Vacation Clubs, they have waived it for us.  It is appreciated.

8. My non support of the Maintenance bill increase - I did not vote for the huge increase in this year’s maintenance fee, because I did not believe that it had been reviewed adequately.  When asked, MVCI said they could cut hundreds of dollars off the fee, but we might “lose some services.”  The Board voted for the increases without further inquiring about alternatives.  

9. Owner concerns and my questioning whether MVCI's $2 million dollar concessions is adequate?  This positive gesture is appreciated, but what percentage of the whole amount does $2 million represent? Even this concession only occurred because of the outcry from hundreds of our Owners.  Remember, this consists of the $1.4 million fee waiver as noted in item #7 above, the waiver of rental income from rooms taken out of inventory during the refurbishment and the 48% cost of the new roof because of the lack of disclosure that the roof sat open for 5 years prior to any MVCI sales to Owners.

10. Owner concerns and my continued request of  legal clarification on the contradictions over who has final authority over the question of integrating the Ocean Club facilities with the Surf Club.   MVCI contends that under their agreements they have final say.& nbsp; But on behalf of the AOC Owners, on a developers-controlled Board, in 2001, prior to the construction of the Surf Club.  I know what the Board was told and I know what we agreed to and did not agree to. I co-signed an agreement and blueprints allowing all Ocean Club Owners free use for life of the Lazy River in exchange for MVCI on behalf of the Surf Club being allowed to open the wall between the two properties for egress, removal of a propane building, use of the Ocean Club lobby for Surf Club check in until the Surf Club lobby is opened etc.  Ocean club's pool, beach, palapas, or tennis courts were never to be used by Surf Club owners.  Why this agreement is “not enforceable” is still in question and although the AOC Board has stated not to integrate, we still share Tennis Courts and MVCI staff have continued to state their long term desire to have an integrated resort. The Owners voted and passed a motion at the 2002 Annual meeting that no integration can occur unles s voted on by the Owners.  Will this be enforced?

11. After Owners request for timely information I created an Owner Web site - www.arubaoceanclub.com. After many years of requesting MVCI to create a web site for Owners’ news, to no avail, I created one and it was recognized as one of the most professional and best Owner sites that many at Marriott had seen.  It was only my posting of correspondence to Owners without MVCI's final approval that led to a decision to move everything thru MVCI, which this Board has done. They have never stated that anything I have written to Owners was untrue, rather  that “Owners do not have to know that much.”  They even stopped sharing owners’ letters to the Board with all Board members.

12.  My concern about past By Law amendment regarding the date for the Annual Meeting - MVCI's and the current Board's legal staff discovered that a 1980's Aruba Law that requires all timeshares to have an annual meeting within 6 months of the end of the fiscal year to provide its Owners will full financial information; the Board moved this year’s meeting forward to comply.   Yet, In 2000 under a developers-controlled Board, a By-Law change was proposed by Marriott's legal department and passed by the Owners/Developer to be recorded with the Aruba government to move our Annual meeting to October to save the Owners expenses and allow for all the financial information to be available. When I pointed this out, MVCI's legal department - although acknowledged from the minutes that this did occur - said that they have no record of recording this By-Law change.  Did the MVCI legal team not know that the 2000 By Law change was in violation of Aruba law and that we have been operating illegally for the past 9 years? This year we did have the annual meeting on May 15. Some owners feel that one of their motives was to remove me from office - 6 months early. I feel that this is a useful law which insures that Time Share Owners get full financial information with 6 months of the end of the year.  But in any event, I feel that the Board is still in violation of Aruba law since they did not provide Owners with a complete accounting nor did they acknowledge or amend the past By-Law change.

13. After request from Owners about Annual audits - Per our By-Laws, the Board must receive annual independent financial Audits. When I asked why this was not done and whether this might be considered mismanagement, MVCI produced audits in 2007 for years 1999-2006 , stating that because of legal confusion on island tax issues the audits were never completed and shared with the Board.  Before I left the Presidency, we set up a finance committee and I hope that they are given the ability to review our complete financial's and insure adequate audits. Who will follow up on this, if Owners have limited contact with the Board?


----------



## marksue

*Allan's letter pt 4*

14. After Owner complaints about safety and security, I requested that MVCI's Lost Prevention staff prepare a report to the Board on security issues.  After seeing that the same room was robbed 6 times in a matter of months and that the exterior doors were rarely locked at night we demanded action.  MVCI finally sent a team to review the problems and correct them.  The Board also converted our 311 key safes to digital ones.  Of the 311 safes MVCI ordered 118 of them with the wrong door swing.  After talking to the Safe manufacturer I was told that everyone knows when you order an item with a door you should specify right or left opening.  &n bsp;MVCI was unhappy that I kept questioning their oversight on this issue.  

15. After MVCI and the Board brought my attention to a Blog - I received a call the day after the annual meeting from Frank Knox stating the he had been contacted by MVCI about a blog site which MVCI monitor, and that I must stop the efforts of an Owner named Mark Silverstein or I would be sued by MVCI personally.   Since I did not look at blogs and did not know Mark at that time, I looked him up to see what he was doing.  I found Mark to a very passionate Owner, who was in Aruba attending the annual meeting and was very upset with the manner Owners were treated by MVCI and the Board at the meeting and their refusal to address Owners questions.  He started a blog on Time Share User Group TUG2
http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82564 
called Marriott Aruba Ocean Club Owners Being Ripped Off By Marriott - READ IF AN OWNER.  Currently this is the most viewed of all Marriott topic sites on Tug and since it start on October 1, 2008, has over 1250 postings and has been viewed over 60,200 times.  Although you might not agree with all the comments or method they are expressed on this site, I believe that Owners want fair justice in resolving our issues.  

16. After talking to many other Vacation Club Board members seeking information, I organized the MVCI Presidents Coalition - Since my expertise is coalition building,  I created the Presidents Coalition seeking to learn "best practices" from the other 50 Marriott Vacation Club Board.  The opportunity to share information with other Boards has been extremely helpful, but something that MVCI has not encouraged. 

17. My request for an Owner contact at MVCI - Although this Board of Directors has not allow direct contact from Owners, I continue to hear from Owners who are in desperate financial straits.  Everyone realizes that we are going thru some of the toughest economic conditions in our Country's history. We must be responsive. Last year when I asked Dirk for a contact person at MVCI, so Owners could share their views, he responded by providing MVCI Owner Relations Vice President David Babich name to be placed on the Owner web site.  But after just a few weeks, I was instructed by MVCI to remove his name, because he was receiving too many inquiries.  Although, he was generally passing along the Owners concerns to others - my question is - is this what MVCI see's as the role of Owner Relations?  This is a major reason why Marriott should take a leadership role and have a true Owner Advocate.  

18. My inquiry about Mr. Marriott's visit to AOC - During April, I was informed that Mr Marriott was planning to visit the Island.  I offered to welcome him and arrange for Owners to meet him,  I was sent an email from MVCI clearing stating that he would not be on the Island. because of the many issues at the AOC.  This email was sent when MVCI sent Dirk and Troy to meet with Owners at the Hotel ballroom at the same time Mr, Marriott was visiting the AOC.  I can understand that Mr. Marriott did not want to hear from our Owners and would respect his wishes, but to make him a unknown party to MVCI's masterful deceit by lying to Owners about his visit is truly a disgrace to the Marriott name.   

19. My presentation at the Marriott International's Annual Stockholders meeting - My statement to the entire Board of Directors of Marriott International alerting them to the issues at the Ocean Club did not endear me to MVCI.  Mr Marriott asked MVCI President Steve Weisz to come up on the podium and respond to a statement by another stockholder (whom I did not know) about Owner dissatisfaction and supporting my comments seeking an Owner Advocacy Office.  My attempt to reach out to Mr. Weisz has been to no avail.

20. My response to the AOC annual meeting and Board elections - The Annual Meeting was not like anything I have ever seen before and was the first one that Marriott's MVCI division took complete control of.  They hired at their expense a parliamentarian (one of only 35 in the nation) to run most of the meeting, they prepared two pages of rules, a proxy review staff, governance staff, security and did away with the secret ballot process for the proxies, etc.  I would say that MVCI had more staff on hand then Owners in attendance.   I ask you:  Why would Marriott spend th ousands of dollars in sending staff and consultants to Aruba for an Owners Annual meeting?  After the meeting I talked to MVCI governance department and asked why they conducted the meeting in this manner, hiring the parliamentarian etc.  I was told that this was a first and it was because MVCI was privy to the proxy count, they knew who the Owners thru their proxies were supporting.  This does not seem right that MVCI used what should have been confidential voting information to their benefit to keep Frank Knox on the Board.  Does this seem ethical?   

Just some of the concerns we must address.  I hope that you stay involved.  Thank you.

Allan S. Cohen


----------



## dioxide45

m61376 said:


> More figures- I was right - OC has 218 units, Surf has 450. I had thought it was closer to double the number of units.
> 
> Where the confusion is I think is that there are proportionally more keyed rooms at the SC because all the villas are lock-outs (2 and 3BR's) and the OC has 1BR and 2BR lock-outs). But the number of villas is about twice the number.



I was obtaining my data from the FAQ

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27886


----------



## ecwinch

At least Allan is now only using Mark as a proxy to post here.

While I appreciated the long missive, I found little new ground was covered. 

I think the letter clearly documents, that Allan was a passionate owner advocate while on the AOC BoD. He has held MVCI accountable, and expended the energy to investigate.

But by reading that letter, I stand by my initial premise that this is BoD politics. A duly elected BoD reviewed the entire scope and importance of the MVCI and AOC relationship, and decided that compromise was the best course of action given the uncertain outcome. One member passionately felt that action was wrong, and used all means in his power to subvert the actions of the BoD.

While I understand the disclaimers offered, having been involved in this thread since the beginning and with the facts outlined in my previous post, I cannot find credence in the statements made that there was no collaboration between Mark and Allan in this crusade. Mark's third post in this thread clearly indicates otherwise. 

I wish Allan the best, and that no harm comes to him from his actions. I wish every timeshare that I own at, had someone as passionate on the BoD. 

But I also recognize all it is all things in moderation. When his vote was counted, and was in the minority, he had an obligation to his fellow BoD members and the ownership as a whole, to support the decision. He did not have to like it, but in the absence of direct proof of undue influence by MVCI, he had an obligation to support. He choose to use other means to continue the battle, when there were many things he could have done.

While he accomplished much in his tenure, I think he is tarnishing that legacy with this crusade.


----------



## m61376

dioxide45 said:


> I was obtaining my data from the FAQ
> 
> http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27886



I had e-mailed Chris awhile back and if you look at his last post the number of rooms at the SC has been corrected. It actually is posted wrong on the MVCI site, the old number of 600+ refers to keyed rooms prior to the new towers (counting 2 and 3BR lockouts as multiple instead of single units). 

I did notice the 125 listed for the OC there, but I was told by a very reliable source that the real number is 218.


----------



## qlaval

m61376 said:


> ...I did notice the 125 listed for the OC there, but I was told by a very reliable source that the real number is 218.



The real unit numbers for the OC are as follow:

*125 **1* bedroom 
*93* * 2* bedrooms
For a total of *218* units.

But if you consider a 2 bedrooms as a two keyed rooms then you would have a total of 311 units.


----------



## lovearuba

ecwinch said:


> At least Allan is now only using Mark as a proxy to post here.
> 
> While I appreciated the long missive, I found little new ground was covered.
> 
> I think the letter clearly documents, that Allan was a passionate owner advocate while on the AOC BoD. He has held MVCI accountable, and expended the energy to investigate.
> 
> While he accomplished much in his tenure, I think he is tarnishing that legacy with this crusade.


 
As we have also stated before, we are pleased with Allan's actions, he represented the owners not Marriott.  I dont think he is tarnishing anything, anyone who has seen their maintenance fee jump 570 in one year and get a second bill for 630 in the same year will be hoping there are more folks on the board questioning the expenses.  No where in any of these communications is there an explanation from Marriott on some of the issues questioned.  Those issues will not be responded to because they will further damage Marriott's reputation.  You should not infer that Allan and Mark have some previous collusion going on, I have been involved as early as Mark was involved and I can tell you first hand Allan was not out there asking for people to go against Marriott, he was a board member asking for disclosure.  Those actions are why he is no longer representing our best interests.  There's a high price to be paid for sticking up for yourself and a higher one for sticking up for others because its the right thing to do.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> ... You should not infer that Allan and Mark have some previous collusion going on, I have been involved as early as Mark was involved and I can tell you first hand Allan was not out there asking for people to go against Marriott, he was a board member asking for disclosure. ...



I don't know how it can simply be ignored that in his first post to this thread, Marksue wrote, "_I have been in touch with the board and have gotten the details of what is taking place. A board member said to me if you find a lawyer who would like to take on a class action suit there would be many people who would be willing to be part of the suit._"  Then in his third post he wrote, "_I actually spoke with Alan and he is the one that suggested getting people togehter and trying to find an attorney to start a class action._"

There's evidence, straight from Mark's fingers, of Allan's collusion with Mark while he was still on the BOD.  What more do you need?


----------



## qlaval

There is evidence of talks between an owner with his HOA President nothing more.
As a matter of fact there was hundred of owners if not more that were talking with their BOD President about the OC situation.
It is only your interpretation that those were about a cooperation for an illegal or deceitful purpose.
Unless you can prove that with an audio tape you are again only speculating....


----------



## SueDonJ

qlaval said:


> There is evidence of talks between an owner with his BOD President nothing more.
> As a matter of fact there was hundred of owners if not more that were talking with their BOD President about the OC situation.
> It is only your interpretation that those were about a cooperation for an illegal or deceitful purpose.
> Unless you can prove that with an audio tape you are again only speculating....



You know, you're right.  In a legal setting such as one that Marriott/MVCI may initiate against Allan for "conduct unbecoming a BOD member" (or whatever they'd use), things written here are probably inadmissible.

But none of us here are stupid.  Mark clearly wrote that he and Allan discussed a possible class action suit by the owners against the BOD/Marriott/MVCI, and he clearly wrote that Allan suggested that he try to get a group effort going.

You can choose to ignore that in favor of Allan's latest missive in which he tries to say that he was not involved in any such thing, but I'll never believe it.  And the fact that he later retracted the words, and had Mark post that Allan wasn't involved after he was issued a warning, makes me believe that everything the man says is suspect.  He's lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Eric

As president, wouldn't his #1 responsibility and loyalty have to be with the resort itself ? Working behind the scenes to insight a riot along with a lawsuit might make him a prime target for legal action against himself never mind taking mark's advice doesn't seem like a recipe for success either considering all his blunders. 




SueDonJ said:


> You know, you're right.  In a legal setting such as one that Marriott/MVCI may initiate against Allan for "conduct unbecoming a BOD member" (or whatever they'd use), things written here are probably inadmissible.
> 
> But none of us here are stupid.  Mark clearly wrote that he and Allan discussed a possible class action suit by the owners against the BOD/Marriott/MVCI, and he clearly wrote that Allan suggested that he try to get a group effort going.
> 
> You can choose to ignore that in favor of Allan's latest missive in which he tries to say that he was not involved in any such thing, but I'll never believe it.  And the fact that he later retracted the words, and had Mark post that Allan wasn't involved after he was issued a warning, makes me believe that everything the man says is suspect.  He's lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Dean

SueDonJ said:


> You know, you're right.  In a legal setting such as one that Marriott/MVCI may initiate against Allan for "conduct unbecoming a BOD member" (or whatever they'd use), things written here are probably inadmissible.
> 
> But none of us here are stupid.  Mark clearly wrote that he and Allan discussed a possible class action suit by the owners against the BOD/Marriott/MVCI, and he clearly wrote that Allan suggested that he try to get a group effort going.
> 
> You can choose to ignore that in favor of Allan's latest missive in which he tries to say that he was not involved in any such thing, but I'll never believe it.  And the fact that he later retracted the words, and had Mark post that Allan wasn't involved after he was issued a warning, makes me believe that everything the man says is suspect.  He's lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned.


I wondered at the time of the "retraction" whether there had already been threats of actions against a BOD member that triggered that retraction.


----------



## ecwinch

I think his passion for protecting owners colored his judgement. And some wounded pride.

I want to blame him, but given his original motivations, I struggle with that.

I hope this whole issue melts away, and Allan is not harmed.


----------



## marksue

marksue said:


> I actually spoke with Alan and he is the one that suggested getting people togehter and trying to find an attorney to start a class action.  I spent a great deal of time talking with him as well as calls into Marriott.  The roof and infrastructure is a major issue as the cost is in the multiple of millions to repair and it should all be covered by Marriott as the roof did not last as long as we were told it would.  I do not believe many people understand what this is going to cost them.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> At this point in time Allan was already forced out as President as he was trying to hold Marriott accountable.  He suggested to me that I should try and get people together and fight this legally if necessary.  He knew Marriott was hiding something and knew as a member of the BOD he could not do anything but other owners could.  Marriott and the rest of the board weren’t listening to him so owners had to take charge.  Nothing wrong with an insider sharing what he knew that impacted the owners and making suggestions on how to approach the issues.


----------



## Eric

I feel better now that you updated us with 100% accurate information. ( as you see it) 




marksue said:


> marksue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually spoke with Alan and he is the one that suggested getting people togehter and trying to find an attorney to start a class action.  I spent a great deal of time talking with him as well as calls into Marriott.  The roof and infrastructure is a major issue as the cost is in the multiple of millions to repair and it should all be covered by Marriott as the roof did not last as long as we were told it would.  I do not believe many people understand what this is going to cost them.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> At this point in time Allan was already forced out as President as he was trying to hold Marriott accountable.  He suggested to me that I should try and get people together and fight this legally if necessary.  He knew Marriott was hiding something and knew as a member of the BOD he could not do anything but other owners could.  Marriott and the rest of the board weren’t listening to him so owners had to take charge.  Nothing wrong with an insider sharing what he knew that impacted the owners and making suggestions on how to approach the issues.
Click to expand...


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> marksue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually spoke with Alan and he is the one that suggested getting people togehter and trying to find an attorney to start a class action.  I spent a great deal of time talking with him as well as calls into Marriott.  The roof and infrastructure is a major issue as the cost is in the multiple of millions to repair and it should all be covered by Marriott as the roof did not last as long as we were told it would.  I do not believe many people understand what this is going to cost them.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> At this point in time Allan was already forced out as President as he was trying to hold Marriott accountable.  He suggested to me that I should try and get people together and fight this legally if necessary.  He knew Marriott was hiding something and knew as a member of the BOD he could not do anything but other owners could.  Marriott and the rest of the board weren’t listening to him so owners had to take charge.  Nothing wrong with an insider sharing what he knew that impacted the owners and making suggestions on how to approach the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On October 1st you posted those first two statements about a conversation you had with Allan, who was a member of the BOD at the time, in which he suggested that you get people together and try to find an attorney for a class action suit.
> 
> On November 1st you posted, "_Just so you are aware Allan has nothing to do with the the proposition for a class action suit, he never suggested it and as a board memeber would not be one to initiate the suit._"  Presumably that post was a direct result of the warning Allan had received that he would be sued personally by MVCI if he did not stop your efforts.
> 
> Now here you are writing again that Allan, "_suggested to me that I should try and get people together and fight this legally if necessary._"
> 
> It doesn't matter if Allan was President of the BOD or not at the time he talked to you or didn't talk to you or suggested a class action suit or didn't, or whatever.  (That's exactly how confusing this is.)  As others have said, his actions while a member of the BOD, as you have related them, were inappropriate.
> 
> The contradictions are not helping your case one bit, and in fact they may actually be causing harm.  Even if what's written here is not admissible, it is probably enough for Marriott to initiate an action against Allan and issue a subpoena to you.  It's still mind-boggling to me that you think the risk is worth it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Eric

Maybe at least one lawsuit will be sucessful  



SueDonJ said:


> marksue said:
> 
> 
> 
> On October 1st you posted those first two statements about a conversation you had with Allan, who was a member of the BOD at the time, in which he suggested that you get people together and try to find an attorney for a class action suit.
> 
> On November 1st you posted, "_Just so you are aware Allan has nothing to do with the the proposition for a class action suit, he never suggested it and as a board memeber would not be one to initiate the suit._"  Presumably that post was a direct result of the warning Allan had received that he would be sued personally by MVCI if he did not stop your efforts.
> 
> Now here you are writing again that Allan, "_suggested to me that I should try and get people together and fight this legally if necessary._"
> 
> It doesn't matter if Allan was President of the BOD or not at the time he talked to you or didn't talk to you or suggested a class action suit or didn't, or whatever.  (That's exactly how confusing this is.)  As others have said, his actions while a member of the BOD, as you have related them, were inappropriate.
> 
> The contradictions are not helping your case one bit, and in fact they may actually be causing harm.  Even if what's written here is not admissible, it is probably enough for Marriott to initiate an action against Allan and issue a subpoena to you.  It's still mind-boggling to me that you think the risk is worth it.
Click to expand...


----------



## modoaruba

Wow. 
Been away for a few days and came back to two pages of this thread.

Like I said before, I feel that Alan has done a wonderful job. Any elected official that would sidestep away from the expected to do the RIGHT thing that comes from their heart to protect those they represent is exemplatory.
Just think.
 If every politician did the right thing and acted in the best interest for those that elected them we would obviously be better off.
I think however we would see more assassinations.
Lots of baiting here.
Alan only did what he thought was right in the best interest of the owners.
I guess NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> Wow.
> Been away for a few days and came back to two pages of this thread.
> 
> Like I said before, I feel that Alan has done a wonderful job. Any elected official that would sidestep away from the expected to do the RIGHT thing that comes from their heart to protect those they represent is exemplatory.
> Just think.
> If every politician did the right thing and acted in the best interest for those that elected them we would obviously be better off.
> I think however we would see more assassinations.
> Lots of baiting here.
> Alan only did what he thought was right in the best interest of the owners.
> I guess NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED.



I agree that Allan's thought process throughout his tenure on the BOD and continuing since then by way of this thread, has probably been that he is helping the owners at Aruba Ocean Club.  But that's the extent of my agreement with his thoughts or his actions.

As a member/President of the BOD, he had a duty to serve the board's interests as well as those of the owners.  At the moment that he realized that the two were in conflict, that his own interests would be better served by taking actions against the BOD/MVCI/Marriott, he should have resigned.  I suspect he didn't because he wanted the best of both worlds - he wanted to be able to use other owners to do his bidding while at the same time continuing to enjoy the privilege of receiving confidential information given to the BOD.  That's why he doesn't have my respect - because he used his trusted position to further his own interests in direct contradiction to the terms of that position.  That's not behavior that deserves accolades.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Represent The Owners' Interests Only, Please.*




SueDonJ said:


> As a member/President of the BOD, he had a duty to serve the board's interests as well as those of the owners.


Shux, I would have expected the duty of all HOA-BOD members, including the president, to be serving the interests of the owners, period. 

The HOA-BOD should not have 1 set of interests & the owners another, different set. 

The timeshare company, sure.  But not the HOA-BOD, from president right on down the line to at-large member. 

Any timeshare HOA-BOD member not representing the owners' interests right on down the line should be voted off the board pronto. 

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


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> I agree that Allan's thought process throughout his tenure on the BOD and continuing since then by way of this thread, has probably been that he is helping the owners at Aruba Ocean Club.  But that's the extent of my agreement with his thoughts or his actions.
> 
> As a member/President of the BOD, he had a duty to serve the board's interests as well as those of the owners.  At the moment that he realized that the two were in conflict, that his own interests would be better served by taking actions against the BOD/MVCI/Marriott, he should have resigned.  I suspect he didn't because he wanted the best of both worlds - he wanted to be able to use other owners to do his bidding while at the same time continuing to enjoy the privilege of receiving confidential information given to the BOD.  That's why he doesn't have my respect - because he used his trusted position to further his own interests in direct contradiction to the terms of that position.  That's not behavior that deserves accolades.



What IS his own interests? Please fill me in.


----------



## SueDonJ

AwayWeGo said:


> Shux, I would have expected the duty of all HOA-BOD members, including the president, to be serving the interests of the owners, period.
> 
> The HOA-BOD should not have 1 set of interests & the owners another, different set.
> 
> The timeshare company, sure.  But not the HOA-BOD, from president right on down the line to at-large member.
> 
> Any timeshare HOA-BOD member not representing the owners' interests right on down the line should be voted off the board pronto.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



Do you think that every owner of a resort agrees with every other owner about what is correct for their resort?  Or that every member of every BOD is always in agreement with every other member or every vote/action taken by the BOD?  I doubt that happens even 50% of the time.  There are plenty of instances where a BOD member's vote is not counted among the majority but that member is still expected to implement the vote/change.  (That's not to say s/he can't try to further the agenda by way of subsequent BOD action.)

But that's not blatant disregard for owner interests (which I agree is cause for removal from a BOD); it's the majority rule in effect.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> What IS his own interests? Please fill me in.



They are all of the things that he believes are being incorrectly handled at Aruba Ocean Club, the same things that you and most of the other owners in this thread have acknowledged are your interests.  The problem is, they appear to be minority interests.  Or at least, a majority of the owners have not asked to be counted among those who share those interests.

(But aren't you really asking me how I can say that his interests as an owner conflicted with his serving on the board, when he and you believe that he served as an owner advocate?  I think you are, and to that I'll say again that he had a duty to implement the majority votes of the BOD without entering into collusion to subvert those decisions.)


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Represent The Owners' Interests Only, Please.*




SueDonJ said:


> Do you think that every owner of a resort agrees with every other owner about what is correct for their resort?  Or that every member of every BOD is always in agreement with every other member or every vote/action taken by the BOD?


It's OK for board members to disagree.  Majority votes carry the day.  Decisions need not be unanimous. 

But there should be no secret agendas, no divided loyalties, no double dealing. 

Everybody on the HOA-BOD is there to represent the interests of the regular, walking-around timeshare owners, period.   No timeshare HOA-BOD has any business holding to any purpose other than that. 

Any timeshare HOA-BOD member not representing the owners' interests right on down the line should be voted off the board posthaste.

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


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> They are all of the things that he believes are being incorrectly handled at Aruba Ocean Club, the same things that you and most of the other owners in this thread have acknowledged are your interests.  The problem is, they appear to be minority interests.  Or at least, a majority of the owners have not asked to be counted among those who share those interests.
> 
> (But aren't you really asking me how I can say that his interests as an owner conflicted with his serving on the board, when he and you believe that he served as an owner advocate?  I think you are, and to that I'll say again that he had a duty to implement the majority votes of the BOD without entering into collusion to subvert those decisions.)



I believe that a majority of owners have no clue that this blog exists nor the controversies that surround the AOC.
I believe that Allan represented a significant number of owners who are aware of the going ons.
By Allan showing more support towards the owners and not the "puppet" BOD
is commendable and proved to myself that when I voted for him I made the right choice.

Now, to be the advocate for the other side,
besides knowing that the fees have gone up,are the majority of owners(and this time I mean majority)that caring that it would change their lives to the point of wanting to sue or do something about it that would cost them more money?
I don't think so.

Most owners will probably continue to vacation without the need to carry any negativity with them to the beach.

There are pros and cons to both sides. Tough chess move coming


----------



## Luckybee

SueDonJ said:


> They are all of the things that he believes are being incorrectly handled at Aruba Ocean Club, the same things that you and most of the other owners in this thread have acknowledged are your interests.  The problem is, they appear to be minority interests.  Or at least, a majority of the owners have not asked to be counted among those who share those interests.




Thank you for hitting one of the main problems dead on . In fact the majority of owners who are aware of the situation are in fact backing the concerned owners group. That is why with the proxies Frank Knox would have been out on his --- had Marriott not voted their B shares. So one could just as easily say that the interests being represented by the "new board" is the minority interest. Without Marriott playing "hide the list" when convenient we could find out for certain. If you wonder what I mean by that take the most recent recall vote situation. Marriott responded to the names gathered by Mark with something similiar to "we have no way to contact all these people to verify if they truly were supportive" yet, a few weeks later most if not all on the list received a letter from the new board about these issues(which had no return address interestingly enough for anyone to respond to), and even more interesting was only sent to those owners on Mark's list. Funny how they managed to contact only those owners they chose to contact when convenient for them to do so. Quite a far cry from no way of verifying ! And given the current situation it is far too premature to say that either side is in the minority. As I said earleir it may well be the "board" and Marriott that are in the minority.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> Thank you for hitting one of the main problems dead on . In fact the majority of owners who are aware of the situation are in fact backing the concerned owners group. That is why with the proxies Frank Knox would have been out on his --- had Marriott not voted their B shares. So one could just as easily say that the interests being represented by the "new board" is the minority interest. Without Marriott playing "hide the list" when convenient we could find out for certain. If you wonder what I mean by that take the most recent recall vote situation. Marriott responded to the names gathered by Mark with something similiar to "we have no way to contact all these people to verify if they truly were supportive" yet, a few weeks later most if not all on the list received a letter from the new board about these issues(which had no return address interestingly enough for anyone to respond to), and even more interesting was only sent to those owners on Mark's list. Funny how they managed to contact only those owners they chose to contact when convenient for them to do so. Quite a far cry from no way of verifying ! And given the current situation it is far too premature to say that either side is in the minority. As I said earleir it may well be the "board" and Marriott that are in the minority.



Modoaruba said something similar about the concerned owners group but the fact remains that Mark has the support of owners who do not represent a majority.  The qualification that most owners who know of the situation support him doesn't matter; Marriott/MVCI/the BOD has direct knowledge of a dissenting minority ownership group.

But you've hit one of the main problems head-on here and I don't think you realize it.  _Criticisms and/or suggestions for the actions Marriott and/or Mark have taken are conveniently ignored or misconstrued to fit this group's agenda, despite the fact that the agenda is poorly served by such actions._

For example, you can speculate all you want that the owners not publicly supporting Mark would do so if they were aware of the situation, which would make Marriott's B share votes incorrect (insofar as those shares should be voted for the majority.)  But it appears that Marriott/MVCI/the BOD considered that those owners do not support his efforts, as evidenced by their silence, therefore the B shares were voted correctly in the majority interest.

But that doesn't fit your agenda, so you conveniently qualify the factual statement that your group is a minority in order to fit your agenda. 

For another example, Marriott didn't respond unfavorably to Mark's letter and accompanying list of names with anything approaching, "we have no way to contact all these people to verify if they truly were supportive."  They responded that they did not support his contention that he was qualified to act "on behalf of" the owners whose names were on that list, as he stated in his letter, because he did not include supporting legal documentation of such qualification.  Critics mentioned that petitions generally require signatures to be valid, that a qualified attorney could have prevented the incorrect submission, that the Marriott response wasn't a complete refusal of the by-law protection but rather a dismissal of the request based on non-compliance with basic legal procedure.  It was also pointed out then that the responsibility for verifying that the people whose names were on that list agreed with the call for the special meeting, rested with the person(s) submitting the request and not with Marriott/MVCI/the BOD.

Yet not one person who supports Mark's efforts has responded to these criticisms by acknowledging the possibility that this particular effort failed because of insufficient legal advice solicited by your group.  Instead, you've misconstrued the Marriott response to try to justify your contention that "they" are acting inappropriately.

Throughout this entire thread there is evidence of your group ranting and raving illogically against Marriott/MVCI/the BOD because it's easier to blame "them" than it is to accept your own shortcomings.  Reasonable people recognize their own limits, and generally make adjustments for them.


----------



## ecwinch

*You have us at a disadvantage*

Without being able to look at the By-Laws of the AOC, I find it difficult to understand why contesting the BoD with the support you have would be so difficult. I am not saying that any action in a contest environment is easy. But if this was one of my timeshares in the US, I could suggest a couple of ways to achieve what you have said that you want, without going to a lawsuit.

There is due process that you have to go through. A lot of people just want to skip to the end, but courts like to see that parties in a lawsuit have not rushed to the courthouse.

So while I would like to take every representation at face value, when you have played so loose with the truth, that I cannot do.

Now this is Aruba, and I cannot research Aruba law easily. But if AOC was in the US, this would have been settled with a request to inspect the records.


----------



## ecwinch

AwayWeGo said:


> Shux, I would have expected the duty of all HOA-BOD members, including the president, to be serving the interests of the owners, period.
> 
> The HOA-BOD should not have 1 set of interests & the owners another, different set.
> 
> The timeshare company, sure.  But not the HOA-BOD, from president right on down the line to at-large member.
> 
> Any timeshare HOA-BOD member not representing the owners' interests right on down the line should be voted off the board pronto.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



Alan,

I have a great deal of respect for your opinion. But on this one we will have to disagree.

Rarely are owners in agreement on a course of action. Membership is too diverse. At one of my timeshares if one group of owners called the shots, then they would ban admitting new members and stop development of any new resort locations. Just because they are vocal, does not mean they represent the mainstream owners - who typically just want to enjoy their vaction.

I think that timeshare owners are usually only united in opposition of the Developer, for every cause needs someone in the role of the villain.


----------



## Luckybee

SueDonJ said:


> For example, you can speculate all you want that the owners not publicly supporting Mark would do so if they were aware of the situation, which would make Marriott's B share votes incorrect (insofar as those shares should be voted for the majority.)  But it appears that Marriott/MVCI/the BOD considered that those owners do not support his efforts, as evidenced by their silence, therefore the B shares were voted correctly in the majority interest.



Sue tell me you cant possibly believe that Marriott voted the B shares against the owners vote because they thought that was what the majority wanted. I know some here like to play devil's advocate but you cant possibly believe that statement.  Whether one is on Marriott's side in this or the owners is one thing but to believe that for the first time virtually in Marriott history that Marriott refused to seat a duly elected by the owners board member by the proxies because they were looking out for the owners is imho is simply , well, im going to be polite and simply say that your bias is becoming questionable.


----------



## modoaruba

Sue,
When you say that Marriott considered the majority in their vote. I agree .
Knowing that the real majority is clueless and maybe do not care enough to put up a stand, they took the opportunity and used their vote to their own advantage.
Politics at its best.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> Sue,
> When you say that Marriott considered the majority in their vote. I agree .
> Knowing that the real majority is clueless and maybe do not care enough to put up a stand, they took the opportunity and used their vote to their own advantage.
> Politics at its best.


That may or may not be true, you're being very presumptuous to say that you know and the those that voted another way don't know what's going on.  I wouldn't have expected Marriott to do anything else except exercise their legal votes in this situation.  Whether they've done so before really has no bearing on the reasonableness IMO.


----------



## modoaruba

Dean said:


> That may or may not be true, you're being very presumptuous to say that you know and the those that voted another way don't know what's going on.  I wouldn't have expected Marriott to do anything else except exercise their legal votes in this situation.  Whether they've done so before really has no bearing on the reasonableness IMO.



I know I was presumptuous. Many responses on this blog have been so  by claiming that a party acted that way because---(fill in the blanks) without concrete knowledge of that parties real intentions.
If we look at how we elect officials,we do so by a majority vote.
Do the Majority really vote? Or is it that the majority of the Minority that votes the candidates in? What are historical election turnouts in percentage?
Either way,most votes win.
When it may be deemed that the officials are not really representing their voters but only their own interests,it is up to those who care to take a stand and become the movers and shakers to PROVE this point to a higher court.
These voters are usually a minority.
It is very difficult to get a true majority to band together and even more so to agree.
That's why, in my opinion,officals get away with what thet get away with.
They take the opportunity to take advantage of the situation knowing that the majority would never take a stand.
My opinion.


----------



## modoaruba

Just for HA HAS.
I do not recall ever seeing the election statistics for the BOD.
Was it ever published?

If not, does anyone have:
1-number of owners
2-how many total votes were sent in
3-how many voted directly for a candidate
4-how many voted by proxy
5-how many did not reply


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> Sue tell me you cant possibly believe that Marriott voted the B shares against the owners vote because they thought that was what the majority wanted. I know some here like to play devil's advocate but you cant possibly believe that statement.  Whether one is on Marriott's side in this or the owners is one thing but to believe that for the first time virtually in Marriott history that Marriott refused to seat a duly elected by the owners board member by the proxies because they were looking out for the owners is imho is simply , well, im going to be polite and simply say that your bias is becoming questionable.





modoaruba said:


> Sue,
> When you say that Marriott considered the majority in their vote. I agree .
> Knowing that the real majority is clueless and maybe do not care enough to put up a stand, they took the opportunity and used their vote to their own advantage.
> Politics at its best.



Here's what I wrote in this thread earlier about the vote:

Post #1162:  "_Perhaps Marriott acted as they did because they realized that a minority splinter group of unhappy owners was acting in collusion to unseat a board member who is finally taking the proper steps to get the resort back up to par financially and structurally, and their unprecedented but legal maneuvering with the votes they hold is an attempt to combat that collusion in the best overall interest of the resort, all of its owners, and itself as the management company?_"

Post#1167:  "_Your rights were not stripped - you and your group were entitled to vote and you did. The other AOC owners were entitled to vote and chose for themselves whether or not they would - the numbers indicate that some abstained. But Marriott also was entitled to vote the shares it holds as the management company, and their representatives did so in what they believe is the best interest of all of the owners as well as the company. ... What it clearly shows me is that Marriott will exert its rights whenever and wherever it believes that its interests are threatened._"

Whether or not you think that the Marriott representatives who voted the B Shares voted incorrectly, the fact remains that they reserve the right to and are entitled to vote those shares as they see fit whenever they choose.  I'll say again that in this instance, because their interests are comprised of the entire ownership base as well as themselves as the management company, they acted exactly as you could expect them to act.

All the speculation in the world that the owners who abstained from voting or submitting a proxy in your side's favor would vote your way if they were only not "clueless" is meaningless and insulting.

And you don't have to be polite.  I do side with Marriott/MVCI in this crusade.  I didn't at the beginning, I sat back and read and tried to figure out  if you folks had good reason to believe that Marriott's actions were inappropriate or subject to legal redress.  But as far as I've seen, you folks have caused more harm than good and Marriott/MVCI has not acted legally inappropriately.  And if I'm able to play devil's advocate for Marriott as simply an MVCI owner, surely you folks could/should have expected and planned against Marriott's actions.  All it would have taken was a little foresight and qualified legal representation.


----------



## modoaruba

Sue,
Nobody speculated that the non voting owners would vote one way or another. Thats moot.
Marriott did do the right thing for themselves by voting as they did.
I don't hold it against them. They were within their legal rights.
As far as any governing group is concerned,they have a right to do as they please because they represent the owners in this instance.
The reason they represent the owners is due to the election results of which I am very interested to see the statistics of.Just for fun.
I am not here to battle. I choose my battles carefully.
All I am pointing out here is that its the way of the world.
If you agree that Marriott and the BOD represents your feelings then you should feel greatful that the system is working for you.
Being an owner myself,I am interested in the different points of view and feel that I have a right to air my views.
I have not always been right. I wish no offense.
Just me giving a peep through another window.


----------



## marksue

*BOD results, not official but from meeting attendee*

Candidate 1    1034
Anthony Lifrieri  3116
Frank Knox        2112 only had 382 till Marriott casted thier votes
Candidate 4   6


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> Candidate 1    1034
> Anthony Lifrieri  3116
> Frank Knox        2112 only had 382 till Marriott casted thier votes
> Candidate 4   6



Were no proxies involved in the election?

Are you factoring them into the informal vote results shown, or counting them as B votes?

And how many B votes does Marriott have and what is the basis for them having those votes? Can someone post the provision in the By-Laws that discusses the B votes.

Typically a developer only has voting rights based on inventory they hold. So if you are saying that Marriott has 1700 B votes, where do they come from.

This is speculation, but given the vote totals, it sounds more like proxies being voted.

And this is idle speculation again, but how were the candidates listed on the ballot? Was the leading vote getter the first name on the ballot?


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> I know I was presumptuous. Many responses on this blog have been so  by claiming that a party acted that way because---(fill in the blanks) without concrete knowledge of that parties real intentions.



I would agree, but that is what the whole blog movement is about, voicing opinions, and often speculation on the motives. It would be really boring if we just reported facts without any interpretation of the information. That naturally forces one to speculate.

But there is a difference between reasonable speculation based on facts, and just speculation.

If tomorrow they raise phone rates at the AOC by 50%, one can either say:

- Damn MVCI profit mongers, they are just ripping the owners off. Lets form a movement to replace the BoD. They rubber-stamped this decision and are probably getting kickbacks from MVCI

or 

- Based on inflationary trends, combined with a general rate increase of 46% by Aruba telephone company 8 months ago, I think the increase is justified. The delta is probably to make up for the gap in timing. 

Now I do not know the latter to be true, as I am not a member of the BoD. But based on reasonable supporting facts, it is not a reasonable conclusion.

It is just applying reason and logic to the facts to reach a reasonable conclusion.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> Were no proxies involved in the election?
> 
> Are you factoring them into the informal vote results shown, or counting them as B votes?
> 
> And how many B votes does Marriott have and what is the basis for them having those votes? Can someone post the provision in the By-Laws that discusses the B votes.
> 
> Typically a developer only has voting rights based on inventory they hold. So if you are saying that Marriott has 1700 B votes, where do they come from.
> 
> This is speculation, but given the vote totals, it sounds more like proxies being voted.
> 
> And this is idle speculation again, but how were the candidates listed on the ballot? Was the leading vote getter the first name on the ballot?



The procedure surrounding that vote is made very confusing by Mark's limited postings and Allan's explanation contained here.  Allan mentions B share votes, unit shares and A Owner votes, but says that "_... For the first time in the history of the Aruba Ocean Club - Marriott MVCI's division headed by Dirk Schavemaker, and Troy Asche cast votes for the A Owner members for election.  For the past 9 years, I and Owners have been told by MVCI President Steve Weisz and other Marriott executives that Marriott does not vote in an Board election for Owners (A members), because they feel that the Owners should have their say and Marriott would not want to influence the election of Owner Members...._"

From that it can _reasonably_ be deduced, _I think_, that B share votes are those cast by the management company as A members, and unit shares are those attached to unsold inventory which the management holds.  At least that's how I interpreted things to reach my conclusion.

Now if any of those 1,730 shares/votes are actually proxy votes, the entire argument changes and is even more in favor of the Marriott representatives' actions.  Because don't we all expect that when we sign our proxy statements, we are expecting that our vote will be cast as we've designated?


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> The procedure surrounding that vote is made very confusing by Mark's limited postings and Allan's explanation contained here.  Allan mentions B share votes, unit shares and A Owner votes, but says that "_... For the first time in the history of the Aruba Ocean Club - Marriott MVCI's division headed by Dirk Schavemaker, and Troy Asche cast votes for the A Owner members for election.  For the past 9 years, I and Owners have been told by MVCI President Steve Weisz and other Marriott executives that Marriott does not vote in an Board election for Owners (A members), because they feel that the Owners should have their say and Marriott would not want to influence the election of Owner Members...._"
> 
> From that it can _reasonably_ be deduced, _I think_, that B share votes are those cast by the management company as A members, and unit shares are those attached to unsold inventory which the management holds.  At least that's how I interpreted things to reach my conclusion.
> 
> Now if any of those 1,730 shares/votes are actually proxy votes, the entire argument changes and is even more in favor of the Marriott representatives' actions.  Because don't we all expect that when we sign our proxy statements, we are expecting that our vote will be cast as we've designated?



I would agree with your analysis, but Allan's statement does not make sense, unless the proxies were pledged to Dirk Schavemaker and Troy Asche.

Proxies are usually pledged to the board in general, and not employees of the manager. 

I agree, without any meaningful facts, it is hard to separate fact from fiction.

Can anyone share any actual facts on this issue. Clearly some information must have been disseminated on the election. 

Can someone check the by-laws and see if you have a "Right of Inspection". HOA's are typically organized as non-profit corporations. And, at least in the US, members have the right to inspect the records of the corporation. I have to think there is something similar in your by-laws.

If Dutch law does not afford similar protections, this would be a big reason not to buy a timeshare outside the US.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> I would agree with your analysis, but Allan's statement does not make sense, unless the proxies were pledged to Dirk Schavemaker and Troy Asche.



Unless, Allan's statement is interpreted to mean, "_... Marriott does not vote *[*in an Board election for Owners*]* (*as* A members), because they feel that the Owners should have their say and Marriott would not want to influence the election of Owner Members...._"

Lots of loose interpretation there, I know, but it was the only way Allan's statement made any sense to me if he was not referring to proxy votes.  And I don't expect that even he would make that deliberate a misstatement to further his agenda.  As I said, if they are proxy votes the entire argument is changed, and not in his favor.



ecwinch said:


> Proxies are usually pledged to the board in general, and not employees of the manager.
> 
> I agree, without any meaningful facts, it is hard to separate fact from fiction.
> 
> Can anyone share any actual facts on this issue. Clearly some information must have been disseminated on the election.
> 
> Can someone check the by-laws and see if you have a "Right of Inspection". HOA's are typically organized as non-profit corporations. And, at least in the US, members have the right to inspect the records of the corporation. I have to think there is something similar in your by-laws.
> 
> If Dutch law does not afford similar protections, this would be a big reason not to buy a timeshare outside the US.



Agreed.


----------



## modoaruba

marksue said:


> Candidate 1    1034
> Anthony Lifrieri  3116
> Frank Knox        2112 only had 382 till Marriott casted thier votes
> Candidate 4   6



Thanks for that info. But what I am getting at is how many total unit votes exist and how many of those actually voted.
I am just curious to see if a majority of owners participated in the election.


----------



## marksue

There has to be a quorom  (25%) of the voting shares, which is why the proxy company made calls to all owners who didnt vote to get them to vote.  

 THe B shares are not proxy's assigned to marriott.  THey are the shares assigned to Marriott in the mgmt agreement for commercial use and common facilities not exclusivly used by A share members (which are the owners).  They did own @145 units  A shares, that were bought or taken back from owners.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Thanks for that info. But what I am getting at is how many total unit votes exist and how many of those actually voted.
> I am just curious to see if a majority of owners participated in the election.



To get to that number, you would need to also know on what basis the voting is done on.

Is it cumulative voting - where each owner gets one vote for each open seat, and they are allowed to vote them all for one candidate?

Update: Based on Allan's post, it looks like voting was culmative:

"For the Board of Directors - a total of 6268 votes were cast. Marriott had at total of 1730 votes (1500 B share votes and 230 shares - ( they said the they had bought back 115 weeks (*2 votes per week*) thus Marriott had a total of 1730 votes.) "

So total eligible votes - excluding the mysterious B votes is:

418 units * 51 weeks * 2 votes per week = 22,236

Assuming MVCI only sells 51 weeks per unit, and sets aside 1 week for maintenance.

The total increases by 836 if they sold 52 weeks.

So with 6268 votes, backing out the 1500 B votes, 4768 divided by 2 = 2384 owners; roughly 23% of the total owners voted.


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> Unless, Allan's statement is interpreted to mean, "_... Marriott does not vote *[*in an Board election for Owners*]* (*as* A members), because they feel that the Owners should have their say and Marriott would not want to influence the election of Owner Members...._"
> 
> Lots of loose interpretation there, I know, but it was the only way Allan's statement made any sense to me if he was not referring to proxy votes.  And I don't expect that even he would make that deliberate a misstatement to further his agenda.  As I said, if they are proxy votes the entire argument is changed, and not in his favor.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.



Without hard data we are spinning our wheels. So to spin them a little more:

In Allan's recap he shows that MVCI voted both as a owner (on the basis of some units they were holding for resale), and their large block of B votes. When he says they voted as "A" members, I think he is referring to them casting the votes for the units they held.

I do not find the fact that they voted as an owner as material. They clearly had a right to do, regardless of past practices. And those votes were not the margin of victory, the "B" votes were.

I would just like to know the basis for those "B" votes. If they are not proxies, then they must be outlined in the By-Laws somewhere.


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> There has to be a quorom  (25%) of the voting shares, which is why the proxy company made calls to all owners who didnt vote to get them to vote.
> 
> THe B shares are not proxy's assigned to marriott.  THey are the shares assigned to Marriott in the mgmt agreement for commercial use and common facilities not exclusivly used by A share members (which are the owners).  They did own @145 units  A shares, that were bought or taken back from owners.



I think I get it now.  Marriott held 1,730 votes for that meeting - the 1,500 B Shares that they hold as the management company, and the 230 A Shares that they hold as unsold inventory.  But Allan said that historically Marriott/MVCI had not voted A Owner shares in member elections, which confused the issue of what constitutes A and B shares and whether or not proxies were counted among those numbers.

Hmmmm, interesting.  Had Marriott/MVCI voted their B shares in the past, or was that also a tactic used first with this vote?

Obviously, the Marriott representatives needed to vote both B and A shares because the 1,500 B shares alone would not give Frank Knox enough votes to be elected.

But still, nothing about Marriott's/MVCI's actions was illegal.  Unprecendented?  Yes.  Questionable?  No.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> There has to be a quorom  (25%) of the voting shares, which is why the * proxy company *  made calls to all owners who didnt vote to get them to vote.
> 
> THe B shares are not proxy's assigned to marriott.  THey are the shares assigned to Marriott in the mgmt agreement for commercial use and common facilities not exclusivly used by A share members (which are the owners).  They did own @145 units  A shares, that were bought or taken back from owners.



But who voted those proxies that the "proxy company" obtained?

And in regard to the "B" shares, where are those votes authorized:

If you mean a document called the "Declaration", then that would be fine.

If you mean the By-Laws, then that is fine also.

But having them in a mgt agreement would not be fine. In the hierarchy of documents, mgt agreements are subordinate to the provisions of the Declaration and By-Laws. 

Mgt agreements are entered into by the BoD. They assign certain rights that the BoD have to the Manager. 

Unless the By-Laws have a provision for these B votes, then the BoD could not assign votes to the Mgt company.

Unless you have some really whacky agreements in Aruba.


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> Obviously, the Marriott representatives needed to vote both B and A shares because the 1,500 B shares alone would not give Frank Knox enough votes to be elected.
> 
> But still, nothing about Marriott's/MVCI's actions was illegal.  Unprecendented?  Yes.  Questionable?  No.



As a Marriott shareholder, I would argue that they had a duty to votes their shares. In a contested election like this one, failing use their votes, might be viewed as a breach of their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.


----------



## modoaruba

So if Eric is correct with (plus or minus) 23% of owners participating in the election,and logically not all of those 23% would be in agreement with the dissention group,how can anything be changed?
Unless a foul of the law can be argued inconclusively,does the dissention group have a right to make decisions for the silent 77%?
This has been my point even though I do agree with most of the "cause".


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> As a Marriott shareholder, I would argue that they had a duty to votes their shares. In a contested election like this one, failing use their votes, might be viewed as a breach of their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.



Oh, I agree, because they'd already been given notice that a minority ownership group would be attempting with their votes to oust a board member who was acting in the majority owners' and management group's best interests.  No shareholder would want that to happen uncontested.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> So if Eric is correct with (plus or minus) 23% of owners participating in the election,and logically not all of those 23% would be in agreement with the dissention group,how can anything be changed?
> Unless a foul of the law can be argued inconclusively,does the dissention group have a right to make decisions for the silent 77%?
> This has been my point even though I do agree with most of the "cause".



Unless there is some validity to Eric's thoughts that the B share votes cast by Marriott/MVCI may be legally challenged,* there isn't any way to change the results of that election.  BUT, the by-law protection which allows a minority (10%) ownership group to petition for a special meeting to initiate a membership vote to remove members of a BOD can be invoked at any time, subject to proper legal submission.

*I think this is the first time questions have come up involving the legality of those B votes (as opposed to the discussion of their unprecendented use being "morally" incorrect.)  Is it really possible, after all this time and research has been expended, that this group and their legal advisors could have missed such a basic illegality?  I don't know why I would be shocked at that, but I would.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Oh, I agree, because they'd already been given notice that a minority ownership group would be attempting with their votes to oust a board member who was acting in the majority owners' and management group's best interests.  No shareholder would want that to happen uncontested.



When you say acting in the majority of owner's best interest you are projecting that as a factual statement. Realistically, since the majority of owners don't give a hoot as shown by election turnout numbers, Marriott can vote in the guise of what is in the best interest of the owners.
What is or isn't in the owner's best interest is irrelevent given the numbers.
If I was shown that a majority of owners,51% or more,are OK with the status quo I would oblige since it's the right thing to do.
Since that cannot happen, I oblige because thats the way it is.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> When you say acting in the majority of owner's best interest you are projecting that as a factual statement. Realistically, since the majority of owners don't give a hoot as shown by election turnout numbers, Marriott can vote in the guise of what is in the best interest of the owners.
> What is or isn't in the owner's best interest is irrelevent given the numbers.
> If I was shown that a majority of owners,51% or more,are OK with the status quo I would oblige since it's the right thing to do.
> Since that cannot happen, I oblige because thats the way it is.



You're right, of course - it can be debated whether Marriott's/MVCI's votes are in support of how the majority would vote if there was 100% turnout.  What I should be saying is that Marriott/MVCI is speculating and can protect/justify its vote actions by presuming that the majority owners don't agree with this minority ownership group by virtue of their silence on the subjects.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> You're right, of course - it can be debated whether Marriott's/MVCI's votes are in support of how the majority would vote if there was 100% turnout.  What I should be saying is that Marriott/MVCI is speculating and can protect/justify its vote actions by presuming that the majority owners don't agree with this minority ownership group by virtue of their silence on the subjects.



And VOILA! We have an understanding.
Next time at the AOC I'll be basking in the sun with the only thought in my mind of
"whatever".


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> And VOILA! We have an understanding.
> Next time at the AOC I'll be basking in the sun with the only thought in my mind of
> "whatever".



Not even a thought about whether your next drink will be an iced tea, a beer or one of those frozen chick drinks, or whether that night's dinner will be steak or seafood?  I like your idea of vacation.


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> Not even a thought about whether your next drink will be an iced tea, a beer or one of those *frozen chick drinks*, or whether that night's dinner will be steak or seafood?  I like your idea of vacation.



Sorry my rule is never have what a frozen chick orders. Nor pay for it.

Avoid frozen chicks entirely. Frozen chicks just break your heart.


----------



## ecwinch

Just realized that the count was 736 to 875, and that I would tag one on for "whatever"


----------



## lovearuba

*Questionable no?*



SueDonJ said:


> I think I get it now. Marriott held 1,730 votes for that meeting - the 1,500 B Shares that they hold as the management company, and the 230 A Shares that they hold as unsold inventory. But Allan said that historically Marriott/MVCI had not voted A Owner shares in member elections, which confused the issue of what constitutes A and B shares and whether or not proxies were counted among those numbers.
> 
> Hmmmm, interesting. Had Marriott/MVCI voted their B shares in the past, or was that also a tactic used first with this vote?
> 
> Obviously, the Marriott representatives needed to vote both B and A shares because the 1,500 B shares alone would not give Frank Knox enough votes to be elected.
> 
> But still, nothing about Marriott's/MVCI's actions was illegal. Unprecendented? Yes. Questionable? No.


 
Are you serious, questionable no?  Not to offend you but I have to do the same thing I do with Eric, what is your relationship to Marriott.  Its certainly bias.  Although with Eric I do think he has some comments that look at both sides of the issue.  Your comments are strictly bias to Marriott, I have to wonder why? Fact, Marriott monitors this site and comments on it.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Are you serious, questionable no?  Not to offend you but I have to do the same thing I do with Eric, what is your relationship to Marriott.  Its certainly bias.  Although with Eric I do think he has some comments that look at both sides of the issue.  Your comments are strictly bias to Marriott, I have to wonder why? Fact, Marriott monitors this site and comments on it.



Ok, we need to come clean.

MVCI called us all up and said if we came over here and tried to submarine the crusade, that we would get free internet, free parking, 10 free drink coupons, and room upgrades. 

I tried to keep it from you, but your repeated questioning of our motives has worn down my resolve. It is kinda like a chinese water torture test, and you have broken me with your unrelenting focus on this question. 

Sorry, Sue, Eric, and others, I broke. The gig is up. We should just come clean.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> I know I was presumptuous. Many responses on this blog have been so  by claiming that a party acted that way because---(fill in the blanks) without concrete knowledge of that parties real intentions.
> If we look at how we elect officials,we do so by a majority vote.
> Do the Majority really vote? Or is it that the majority of the Minority that votes the candidates in? What are historical election turnouts in percentage?
> Either way,most votes win.
> When it may be deemed that the officials are not really representing their voters but only their own interests,it is up to those who care to take a stand and become the movers and shakers to PROVE this point to a higher court.
> These voters are usually a minority.
> It is very difficult to get a true majority to band together and even more so to agree.
> That's why, in my opinion,officals get away with what thet get away with.
> They take the opportunity to take advantage of the situation knowing that the majority would never take a stand.
> My opinion.


I realize that one must make some assumptions to discuss this issue and your assumptions may indeed be correct, but they may not be.  Usually votes such as this are in the 5% or less of total potential votes, if 25% are required,  that's high IMO.  Often there is a minimal % of votes required to conduct certain type of business or often if you don't get a min % of total voters, a second meeting with a lower % is required.  Another reason some of us were hoping to see the various legal paperwork that deals with this issue.  I would agree that as a generalization, most voters don't have a clue.  I own a resort that set the budget and certain cost items as separate agenda items.  They approved the cost items but not the budget, quite funny I thought.  

I think one fundamental difference between myself and some of the rest is that in my view, Marriott is an owner to and has the right to vote their units just like anyone else and it mattes not in my mind if they have or have not done so in the past.  To me, this is the members voting.  Whether the commercial unit shares are votable again comes back to the legalities spelled out in the paperwork, not whether they've used them in the past.


----------



## ecwinch

Dean said:


> I realize that one must make some assumptions to discuss this issue and your assumptions may indeed be correct, but they may not be.  Usually votes such as this are in the 5% or less of total potential votes, if 25% are required,  that's high IMO.  Often there is a minimal % of votes required to conduct certain type of business or often if you don't get a min % of total voters, a second meeting with a lower % is required.  Another reason some of us were hoping to see the various legal paperwork that deals with this issue.  I would agree that as a generalization, most voters don't have a clue.  I own a resort that set the budget and certain cost items as separate agenda items.  They approved the cost items but not the budget, quite funny I thought.



Dean,

Like you, I questioned the 25% percentage. It seemed high for a quorum requirement.

My thought was that someone was reading a section related to amending the By-laws. Typically I see requirements increase in the following fashion:

% required to call a special meeting 
% required for meeting quorum
% required to amend By-Laws
% required to amend the Declarations
% required to amend the Declarations that materially adversely affect the rights of Members

from lowest to highest

For the AOC, having a 10% requirement to call a special meeting, with a 25% requirement to meet quorum, would effectively negate the right for any action to be taken at a special meeting (if only the members requesting attended/voted).

We keep banging up against our inability to read the By-Laws.


----------



## tlwmkw

I haven't chimed in for a while because I don't really see how this can come to a conclusion that will mollify the dissatisfied owners group but one thought does keep coming to my mind as I read through this thread.  What control do you believe that MVCI has over Frank Knox or indeed any other members of the board?  If you allow that they are just owners who are willing to sit on the board like anyone else then how can Marksue and lovearuba keep accusing them of being puppets of MVCI?  It just doesn't make sense to me- as it is the much revered Allan Cohen was allowed to run for the board (and even become president) by the evil folks at MVCI.  Why did they allow him in in the first place?  I guess their usual puppet mind control techniques failed on him and so he became a dissident.  If you think about the facts it is really ridiculous to assume that Marriott knows what Frank Knox, or anyone else for that matter, will do in any given situation so why would they go out on a limb to make sure he is voted on to the board?

Anyway, I still think the dissident group should look to the future and focus on insuring that the resort is in good repair and that MF's are set at a level so that they will not get hit in the future by SA's that bust the bank.  I know that there are lots of "secret reports" that only Allan and Marksue are allowed to see but I don't think even those will triumph in this situation.  You will just end up paying for lots of expensive lawyers and may end up in a worse place than you are now.  Be careful what you wish/litigate for.  You have been getting good advice from ecwinch and suedonj- don't write them off as Marriott supporters- they just see both sides.


----------



## Dean

tlwmkw said:


> I haven't chimed in for a while because I don't really see how this can come to a conclusion that will mollify the dissatisfied owners group but one thought does keep coming to my mind as I read through this thread.  What control do you believe that MVCI has over Frank Knox or indeed any other members of the board?  If you allow that they are just owners who are willing to sit on the board like anyone else then how can Marksue and lovearuba keep accusing them of being puppets of MVCI?  It just doesn't make sense to me- as it is the much revered Allan Cohen was allowed to run for the board (and even become president) by the evil folks at MVCI.  Why did they allow him in in the first place?  I guess their usual puppet mind control techniques failed on him and so he became a dissident.  If you think about the facts it is really ridiculous to assume that Marriott knows what Frank Knox, or anyone else for that matter, will do in any given situation so why would they go out on a limb to make sure he is voted on to the board?
> 
> Anyway, I still think the dissident group should look to the future and focus on insuring that the resort is in good repair and that MF's are set at a level so that they will not get hit in the future by SA's that bust the bank.  I know that there are lots of "secret reports" that only Allan and Marksue are allowed to see but I don't think even those will triumph in this situation.  You will just end up paying for lots of expensive lawyers and may end up in a worse place than you are now.  Be careful what you wish/litigate for.  You have been getting good advice from ecwinch and suedonj- don't write them off as Marriott supporters- they just see both sides.


To play the devils advocate to a degree, I do know it is very possible for a management company to control a BOD in a number of ways.  One, they tend to be intimidating in their presentation and in the numbers and info they throw around.  Another, they can be heavy handed if they so choose.  Marriott can be a lot of both when they see the need.  And likely the most common and most effective way, they can provide the info they want in the way they want you to receive it.  On top of that, Aruba really is a good ole boy network in many ways.  I have owned at a resort in Aruba that has gone through much the same issues with 3 SA and a 25% fee hike that was essentially an ongoing SA.  Including lack of payments from the developer to the management company (their management company) for years along with many other very questionable issues.  The second SA was essentially to do the same things that the first one was scheduled for, no explanation was ever offered as to why.  Just by sheer luck, I missed them all by being in between units (having sold some and buying back later) and then for the last one, having converted to the points system where the SA was spread over much of the entire membership in those points.  Fortunately I paid a SA of less than $50 rather than the $8000 it would have been had I still owned the fixed weeks.  I wish I could say it was skill or knowledge that I missed all the extra expenses but the truth is it was pure luck.  And fortunately I did not know of any of the SA at the time I sold any units in question so there was no disclosure issues.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> Are you serious, questionable no?  Not to offend you but I have to do the same thing I do with Eric, what is your relationship to Marriott.  Its certainly bias.  Although with Eric I do think he has some comments that look at both sides of the issue.  Your comments are strictly bias to Marriott, I have to wonder why? Fact, Marriott monitors this site and comments on it.



Yes, I am serious, and I have already written my explanation and my connection to Marriott (which is the same as yours - I'm an MVCI owner.)

If Marriott is reading, I hope that they intend to compensate me in some way.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> Ok, we need to come clean.
> 
> MVCI called us all up and said if we came over here and tried to submarine the crusade, that we would get free internet, free parking, 10 free drink coupons, and room upgrades.
> 
> I tried to keep it from you, but your repeated questioning of our motives has worn down my resolve. It is kinda like a chinese water torture test, and you have broken me with your unrelenting focus on this question.
> 
> Sorry, Sue, Eric, and others, I broke. The gig is up. We should just come clean.



OH DANG!  You mean you all are already getting compensation?!?!  All they promised me was a TOP 25 spot on The Good Owner list!

It is time to look up Scott Boras.  Hmmmph.


----------



## Chemee

ecwinch said:


> But who voted those proxies that the "proxy company" obtained?



I can answer this for you since we are MAO owners who submitted a proxy vote.  There were two options - Frank Knox to vote for you or write-in a name of someone who was attending the meeting to vote for you.

I also want to say that we did not vote for Frank Knox.  Our vote was based on the bios we received, not this thread (I'm not a diehard follower & think it's past it's useful purpose).  Upon review of the bios, it was clear to us that another candidate was better qualified.  We are perplexed to why Marriott voted it's shares to keep Frank Knox on the Board since obviously more than the 10% Concerned Owners Group voted not to reelect Mr. Knox.


----------



## SueDonJ

Dean said:


> To play the devils advocate to a degree, I do know it is very possible for a management company to control a BOD in a number of ways.  One, they tend to be intimidating in their presentation and in the numbers and info they throw around.  Another, they can be heavy handed if they so choose.  Marriott can be a lot of both when they see the need.  And likely the most common and most effective way, they can provide the info they want in the way they want you to receive it.  On top of that, Aruba really is a good ole boy network in many ways.  I have owned at a resort in Aruba that has gone through much the same issues with 3 SA and a 25% fee hike that was essentially an ongoing SA.  Including lack of payments from the developer to the management company (their management company) for years along with many other very questionable issues.  The second SA was essentially to do the same things that the first one was scheduled for, no explanation was ever offered as to why.  Just by sheer luck, I missed them all by being in between units (having sold some and buying back later) and then for the last one, having converted to the points system where the SA was spread over much of the entire membership in those points.  Fortunately I paid a SA of less than $50 rather than the $8000 it would have been had I still owned the fixed weeks.  I wish I could say it was skill or knowledge that I missed all the extra expenses but the truth is it was pure luck.  And fortunately I did not know of any of the SA at the time I sold any units in question so there was no disclosure issues.



I agree that it is possible for the management companies (in this case, Marriott/MVCI) to be heavy-handed with the boards, and I fully admit that as a satisfied owner of MVCI property I give them leeway because I am familiar with how their management style can add immensely to the value of a resort.  I also don't automatically look for illegalities in any of their decisions or maneuvers because I figure that they could not possibly have become as successful as they are if their business practices are not sound.

But of course it IS possible for them to make improper moves at any time, and it doesn't make any sense at all to not be on the lookout for those instances.  Nothing in this thread, though, has made me think that Marriott/MVCI/the BOD has acted illegally.  What I don't understand, what I keep coming back to, is that the questions raised _here_ in this thread concerning the actions that Marriott/MVCI/the BOD have taken during this ongoing debacle _should_ have been anticipated - _would have been_ by qualified legal representation - before this minority group took any of their actions.  It boggles my mind that anybody could think they could go up against a corporation as large and established as Marriott without proper preparation or representation.


----------



## SueDonJ

Chemee said:


> I can answer this for you since we are MAO owners who submitted a proxy vote.  There were two options - Frank Knox to vote for you or write-in a name of someone who was attending the meeting to vote for you.
> 
> I also want to say that we did not vote for Frank Knox.  Our vote was based on the bios we received, not this thread (I'm not a diehard follower & think it's past it's useful purpose).  Upon review of the bios, it was clear to us that another candidate was better qualified.  We are perplexed to why Marriott voted it's shares to keep Frank Knox on the Board since obviously more than the 10% Concerned Owners Group voted not to reelect Mr. Knox.



I appreciate your good, solid reasoning for not casting your vote for Frank Knox, and the fact that you offered something new to this discussion.  Thanks.

I think, or I would expect, that if enough votes to equal a majority of the entire ownership had been cast to result in Frank Knox not being reelected, Marriott would have either abstained from casting their votes or thrown their votes in with the majority.  Of course I have no idea, but that's what I think, and it's not based on any goodwill feeling I have for Marriott.  It's because if that was the circumstance, it would have been pointless for Marriott to vote for Frank Knox simply because their votes would not result in him being reelected - they don't hold enough shares for that.

I think, again, that the reason they did cast their votes for Frank Knox was because (one) by doing so they could effectively manage the election and (two) Frank was the sitting President of the BOD that made the unpopular decisions/actions to increase the maintenance fees and levy a special assessment fee.  The fact that this minority ownership group opposed his reelection probably played a part, also, but to a lesser extent.  Marriott/MVCI probably considered that it would be that much more difficult for a new President to come in so soon after the implementation of the fee increases while all this turmoil is swirling.

But of course, that's only my speculation and opinion.


----------



## ecwinch

Chemee said:


> I can answer this for you since we are MAO owners who submitted a proxy vote.  There were two options - Frank Knox to vote for you or write-in a name of someone who was attending the meeting to vote for you.
> 
> I also want to say that we did not vote for Frank Knox.  Our vote was based on the bios we received, not this thread (I'm not a diehard follower & think it's past it's useful purpose).  Upon review of the bios, it was clear to us that another candidate was better qualified.  We are perplexed to why Marriott voted it's shares to keep Frank Knox on the Board since obviously more than the 10% Concerned Owners Group voted not to reelect Mr. Knox.



Idle speculation again - but if Frank was the party designated to vote the proxies, then I think the bump is from the proxies rather than the B votes. Any proxy solicitation from the BoD usually receives a decent turn-out. So if the original report of 300 or so votes for Frank is correct, then either the proxies were nominal or the votes attributed to the B shares were actually the proxies.

Either is possible. 

And the whole explanation of the B votes being for the commercial use and common facilities does not make sense. Do they pay m/f on the common facilities? And they rent the commercial areas. Who would give HOA votes to someone that rents commercial space. How did the Budget rent-a-car desk vote their ballots? Something is not right there. 

And if the "crusaders" want to complain about something, it should be that Frank was designated to vote the proxies. A BoD member running for election has an inherent conflict of interest if allowed to vote proxies in their favor. The proxies should go to the BoD, and should be voted based on the decision of the BoD with any members up for reelection not voting.

Or more appropriately, the BoD should only solicit proxies for the purpose of meeting quorum.


----------



## ecwinch

tlwmkw said:


> I haven't chimed in for a while because I don't really see how this can come to a conclusion that will mollify the dissatisfied owners group but one thought does keep coming to my mind as I read through this thread.  What control do you believe that MVCI has over Frank Knox or indeed any other members of the board?  If you allow that they are just owners who are willing to sit on the board like anyone else then how can Marksue and lovearuba keep accusing them of being puppets of MVCI?  It just doesn't make sense to me- as it is the much revered Allan Cohen was allowed to run for the board (and even become president) by the evil folks at MVCI.  Why did they allow him in in the first place?  I guess their usual puppet mind control techniques failed on him and so he became a dissident.  If you think about the facts it is really ridiculous to assume that Marriott knows what Frank Knox, or anyone else for that matter, will do in any given situation so why would they go out on a limb to make sure he is voted on to the board?
> 
> Anyway, I still think the dissident group should look to the future and focus on insuring that the resort is in good repair and that MF's are set at a level so that they will not get hit in the future by SA's that bust the bank.  I know that there are lots of "secret reports" that only Allan and Marksue are allowed to see but I don't think even those will triumph in this situation.  You will just end up paying for lots of expensive lawyers and may end up in a worse place than you are now.  Be careful what you wish/litigate for.  You have been getting good advice from ecwinch and suedonj- don't write them off as Marriott supporters- they just see both sides.



Do you own at the Ocean Club?


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> OH DANG!  You mean you all are already getting compensation?!?!  All they promised me was a TOP 25 spot on The Good Owner list!
> 
> It is time to look up Scott Boras.  Hmmmph.




I got to this thread before you did. Eric beat me by a few posts. He probably has a real sweet deal, and besides he works for Marriott. He is probably getting monetary compensation, and I just get non-cash stuff. They also told me I could keep the MVCI pens in any unit I reserved for the next 10 years. 

Heck he may even be the MVCI monitor alluded to earlier.


----------



## lovearuba

*The pens*



ecwinch said:


> I got to this thread before you did. Eric beat me by a few posts. He probably has a real sweet deal, and besides he works for Marriott. He is probably getting monetary compensation, and I just get non-cash stuff. They also told me I could keep the MVCI pens in any unit I reserved for the next 10 years.
> 
> Heck he may even be the MVCI monitor alluded to earlier.


 
You mean we are not supposed to take those pens?:ignore:


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> You mean we are not supposed to take those pens?:ignore:




See now we know why AOC m/f have gotten so high - LoveAruba is stealing all the darn pens. I bet he takes the batteries out of the remotes, and those little shampoo's and soaps. Heck maybe even the extra paper towels. And everyone knows how much more expensive things are in Aruba.

The focus of this whole crusade is misplaced. It's the owners....
:hysterical:


----------



## Eric

The only thing I get for posting is the satisfaction that other Marriott owners sees people are actually calling Mark out on his non-factual rants. 



ecwinch said:


> I got to this thread before you did. Eric beat me by a few posts. He probably has a real sweet deal, and besides he works for Marriott. He is probably getting monetary compensation, and I just get non-cash stuff. They also told me I could keep the MVCI pens in any unit I reserved for the next 10 years.
> 
> Heck he may even be the MVCI monitor alluded to earlier.


----------



## Dean

ecwinch said:


> The focus of this whole crusade is misplaced. It's the owners....


I know you're joshing but there's a lot of truth in that statement at any timeshare.  We are often our own worst enemy.  This seems to be more true for points systems and floating week/floating unit timeshares than fixed week/fixed unit options.


----------



## SueDonJ

Eric said:


> The only thing I get for posting is the satisfaction that other Marriott owners sees people are actually calling Mark out on his non-factual rants.



Do you want Scott Boras' number?


----------



## ecwinch

Seeing how Scott is representing the #1 and #2 picks in this years draft, it might be a while before you get a call-back.


----------



## lovearuba

*renovations*

Hi
Marriott has picttures posted in the lobby of the ocean club showing the new renovations.  If interested send me a pm and I'll send them along.  I am pleased with the depictions in the pictures, the colors are beautiful and the place will look completely different when they are done.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> Hi
> Marriott has picttures posted in the lobby of the ocean club showing the new renovations.  If interested send me a pm and I'll send them along.  I am pleased with the depictions in the pictures, the colors are beautiful and the place will look completely different when they are done.



I'm so glad to "hear" a positive note in your words!  After all the unhappiness that's been generated over these many months, it's great that you Aruba Ocean Club owners will have a chance to love your beautiful home resort again.

I don't know if you're aware that posting pictures here is really simple to do and requires only that you use a hosting site - Photobucket.com is a free host.  We'd all love to see your pictures and I'd be happy to help you step-by-step.


----------



## lovearuba

*I'm pretty computer literate*



SueDonJ said:


> I'm so glad to "hear" a positive note in your words! After all the unhappiness that's been generated over these many months, it's great that you Aruba Ocean Club owners will have a chance to love your beautiful home resort again.
> 
> I don't know if you're aware that posting pictures here is really simple to do and requires only that you use a hosting site - Photobucket.com is a free host. We'd all love to see your pictures and I'd be happy to help you step-by-step.


 
I'm glad to see you are trying to be helpful Sue although you do have a tendency to have a tone of sarcasm in your message.  I hope you understand why I choose not to take you up on your offer.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> I'm glad to see you are trying to be helpful Sue although you do have a tendency to have a tone of sarcasm in your message.  I hope you understand why I choose not to take you up on your offer.



You're right - at times I don't make enough of an effort to keep that tone from creeping in.  This time I'm genuine, though I can understand your hesitation.

I hope someone else makes the same offer, because I really would like to see how it's expected that your resort will look when it's newly done.  And in any event, I am glad to "hear" your enthusiasm.


----------



## Luckybee

SueDonJ said:


> I'm so glad to "hear" a positive note in your words!  After all the unhappiness that's been generated over these many months, it's great that you Aruba Ocean Club owners will have a chance to love your beautiful home resort again.




Not all of us will have a chance to love our home resort again Sue. Many have had to sell because of what has transpired . Many( ourselves included), are seriously considering selling. Dh and I have discussed this issue over and over again and are going back and forth over this endlessly. We've owned since it first opened and as i said before we used to be Marriott cheerleaders too. Now for us it is coming down to the following : we doubt we could ever feel comfortable owning at a timeshare again, particularily Marriott. This whole thing has just left too much of a sour taste in our mouths. 

Dh and I travel quite extensively, staying almost universally at 5 and 6 * properties and rarely do we have any major problems at any properties. About 2 years ago we had a problem at the Ritz in Grand Cayman. I wont digress and go into all the details but the point is we wouldnt go back(to the Ritz....we'd go back to gc in a second  but the beauty of it is we're under no obligation to do so. We still love Aruba, and prior to our purchase stayed at the Hyatt for years. It would be very easy to go back to that propery. So for 1 or 2 trips a year right now we can choose where we feel like going based on our desire at that time while for the 3rd we have to stay at our Marriott timeshare, which right now for us just doesnt feel right( and we're not into playing the trading game unless we have to). I dunno , it just doesnt sit right with me to continue to support a company who has done what imho they've done. I am not going to get into a debate about they have or havent done here. This is simply about the way we feel, and our perceptions. We have the next trip booked to Aruba and it will be the first for us since this whole thing began(we had to cancel because of medical reasons for the last 2 years). I guess time will tell as to whether we'll have the comfort level back. Somehow right now I doubt it. I cant help but feel resentment towards Mariott. Ive made certain that none of our business travel or our colleagues business travel involves a stay at a Marriott property. I've cleaned out both of our Marriott points. I have discouraged colleagues from purchasing a timeshare which they were going to buy. I would feel like a hypocrite if I continued owning there. I realize this wont sit well with some of you but this is the way we feel and sadly the trust and feeling of comfort is simply gone. I have no idea what we'll do yet, I am pretty sure we wont take a total beating pricewise if we do since we did buy when the prices were still very good and I havent seen a listing for anything as low as what we paid. At this point though it doesnt much matter. We've spend more on a single holiday that we did for our two weeks of purchase and I am not going to keep going if we wont enjoy it !


----------



## lovearuba

*I will post pics later*



Luckybee said:


> Not all of us will have a chance to love our home resort again Sue. Many have had to sell because of what has transpired . Many( ourselves included), are seriously considering selling. Dh and I have discussed this issue over and over again and are going back and forth over this endlessly. We've owned since it first opened and as i said before we used to be Marriott cheerleaders too. Now for us it is coming down to the following : we doubt we could ever feel comfortable owning at a timeshare again, particularily Marriott. This whole thing has just left too much of a sour taste in our mouths.
> 
> Dh and I travel quite extensively, staying almost universally at 5 and 6 * properties and rarely do we have any major problems at any properties. About 2 years ago we had a problem at the Ritz in Grand Cayman. I wont digress and go into all the details but the point is we wouldnt go back(to the Ritz....we'd go back to gc in a second  but the beauty of it is we're under no obligation to do so. We still love Aruba, and prior to our purchase stayed at the Hyatt for years. It would be very easy to go back to that propery. So for 1 or 2 trips a year right now we can choose where we feel like going based on our desire at that time while for the 3rd we have to stay at our Marriott timeshare, which right now for us just doesnt feel right( and we're not into playing the trading game unless we have to). I dunno , it just doesnt sit right with me to continue to support a company who has done what imho they've done. I am not going to get into a debate about they have or havent done here. This is simply about the way we feel, and our perceptions. We have the next trip booked to Aruba and it will be the first for us since this whole thing began(we had to cancel because of medical reasons for the last 2 years). I guess time will tell as to whether we'll have the comfort level back. Somehow right now I doubt it. I cant help but feel resentment towards Mariott. Ive made certain that none of our business travel or our colleagues business travel involves a stay at a Marriott property. I've cleaned out both of our Marriott points. I have discouraged colleagues from purchasing a timeshare which they were going to buy. I would feel like a hypocrite if I continued owning there. I realize this wont sit well with some of you but this is the way we feel and sadly the trust and feeling of comfort is simply gone. I have no idea what we'll do yet, I am pretty sure we wont take a total beating pricewise if we do since we did buy when the prices were still very good and I havent seen a listing for anything as low as what we paid. At this point though it doesnt much matter. We've spend more on a single holiday that we did for our two weeks of purchase and I am not going to keep going if we wont enjoy it !


 
We must be twins.  We were just in Aruba last week, it has not changed although it was pretty dead, no waits anyway and unfortunately the restaurants seem to have all raised their prices.  The resort is still beautiful and the people are still wonderful.  I hope you still enjoy your time there.  I will post the pics to the shutterfly and post the link later.  Have a great day.


----------



## lovearuba

*Ocean Club Remodel*

Here are the pics

http://share.shutterfly.com/share/r...f8ad5209fef06cbbd47cbb382743&sid=8YcNG7VmybuA

Let me know if you have any problems viewing.http://share.shutterfly.com/action/welcome?sid=8YcNG7VmybuA


----------



## marksue

lucky,

I have heard from other owners that were or are forced to sell thier units.  Some have taken a beating since they only bought a few years ago.  Even though I bought 10 years ago, based on what I am seeing I would also not be able to sell my units for what I paid for them.  

I also have avoided Marriott as much as I could in my business travels.  I have actually started staying at Hyatts and I find them to be nicer than Marriotts.  Even the Hyatt Place is nicer than courtyards.

The way Marriott has handled this matter has really turned me off to the company.  It is a shame since I have had over 1 million points in my lifetime and still have over 1/2 million to use.  

Our legal council is moving forward and as soon as his papers are filed I will update you with what is taking place.  He feels quite confident on the game plan.


----------



## timeos2

*Wait until the owners get the bill for this*



marksue said:


> Our legal council is moving forward and as soon as his papers are filed I will update you with what is taking place.  He feels quite confident on the game plan.



Now that quite plainly says that apparently soon the Association will have legal bills to pay to defend themselves.  The fact that it has been painted as an action "only against Marriott" doesn't hold water as Marriott will certainly channel all activity regarding any lawsuit through the Association (if they didn't operate the resort there would be no lawsuit).  So once the meter starts running for an Association legal team to fight this let's see how support for the cause holds up.  It will be largely on the owners backs unless the Board turns around and successfully sues Marriott to cover those costs too (unlikely due to the cost and the low chance of a successful outcome). It doesn't take long for those bills to get into the 5 and 6 and possibly 7 figure range. Aren't there better places the Association needs to spend that type of cash?  Is that in the budget? 

From the start this sounded like it wold end up costing owners money. Now it seems to be coming true. Stay tuned for the fun.


----------



## tlwmkw

Luckybee,

I think you are making a wise decision by selling.  I can understand that you feel Marriott has let you down and don't want to continue to own there.  The best choice for owners now is to stick with the resort and wait until the renovation is done and enjoy it, or to sell, as you are doing.  Anyone who continues to own really needs to be sure that the building is properly repaired/maintained and won't have ongoing problems.  The lawsuits that are brewing will probably do nothing to ensure that and will probably only benefit the lawyers (has anyone noticed the recent RCI settlement?) at the owners expense.  

I don't know why you think anyone would have a problem with your decision- I can see both sides in this case and while I think the situation has been poorly managed by Marksue et al I also see that Marriott has been at fault in some ways also- they really should have been more open about what was going on at the resort.  It's a bad situation all around and I don't think much good will come out of this situation.  I continue to wish you all the best in this very tough situation.

tlwmkw


----------



## marksue

*email from an owner at the OCean club*

"I am currently on site and at the Owner's Reception last evening the latest resort information was poorly presented. The Management Team tried their best to dodge all the tough questions and asked quite a few owner's to take it off-line. In what seems to be the new norm, they seem to not be telling the whole truth. At the Towel Hut this morning many guests were very curious as to the real state of the union and said very clearly that they would never buy at the Ocean Club with these circumstances. I'll let you know if anything of interest comes up in the next week. One item of note is that many folks from the overbooked Surf Club are finding their way onto the Ocean Club beach and pool area. The new idea of chaining all the beach chairs up to the Palapas is going to cause a serious mold problem on all the chairs if they are not cleaned regularly, which it appears is not happening. But this is the least of our problems..."


----------



## SueDonJ

tlwmkw said:


> Luckybee,
> 
> I think you are making a wise decision by selling.  I can understand that you feel Marriott has let you down and don't want to continue to own there.  The best choice for owners now is to stick with the resort and wait until the renovation is done and enjoy it, or to sell, as you are doing.  Anyone who continues to own really needs to be sure that the building is properly repaired/maintained and won't have ongoing problems.  The lawsuits that are brewing will probably do nothing to ensure that and will probably only benefit the lawyers (has anyone noticed the recent RCI settlement?) at the owners expense.
> 
> I don't know why you think anyone would have a problem with your decision- I can see both sides in this case and while I think the situation has been poorly managed by Marksue et al I also see that Marriott has been at fault in some ways also- they really should have been more open about what was going on at the resort.  It's a bad situation all around and I don't think much good will come out of this situation.  I continue to wish you all the best in this very tough situation.
> 
> tlwmkw



I agree completely with this.  None of us critics can judge as right or wrong any Ocean Club owner's decision whether to sell their week(s) or ride out the storm in anticipation of a renewed sparkling top-rated resort which has hopefully put its financial difficulties behind.  After all, neither decision can be said to be either right or wrong by the owners either; what works personally for one will not for another. 

But that's not what the critics in this thread have done and I think it's unfair that the owners put that perception out there.  You can review the entire thread and see throughout that the questions asked of critics have all been along the lines of,

-  "If you feel so strongly that you have been wronged by Marriott/MVCI/your BOD, why aren't you taking the necessary legal steps to correct those wrongs,"
-  "What in your ownership and other documents offers you proof (that would stand up in a court setting) that you have been wronged," and,
-  "When you consider the possible end results, will the costs (meaning dollar AND management company/owner relationship) involved in litigation be worth paying on top of the fees to improve/maintain the resort to what is expected of an MVCI property?"

That's what this thread has been about for me, anyway.  And yes, along the way there's been courtesy, snarkiness, sarcasm, tangents and humor, from everyone.  It's been a long discussion; those things can be expected.  Whatever "tone" the posts may have had at any time, I certainly learned a few things.  I hope we all did.

[Edit:  I did it again, tacked on to one of *tlwmkw's* posts without acknowledging that s/he's been a voice of reason, been able to formulate words so clearly, and been quite knowledgeable throughout the discussion.  Nice work.]


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> "I am currently on site and at the Owner's Reception last evening the latest resort information was poorly presented. The Management Team tried their best to dodge all the tough questions and asked quite a few owner's to take it off-line. In what seems to be the new norm, they seem to not be telling the whole truth. At the Towel Hut this morning many guests were very curious as to the real state of the union and said very clearly that they would never buy at the Ocean Club with these circumstances. I'll let you know if anything of interest comes up in the next week. One item of note is that many folks from the overbooked Surf Club are finding their way onto the Ocean Club beach and pool area. The new idea of chaining all the beach chairs up to the Palapas is going to cause a serious mold problem on all the chairs if they are not cleaned regularly, which it appears is not happening. But this is the least of our problems..."



Mark, serious question here.  If you believe that after all these months and communications to owners that the "tough questions" have still not been answered, what makes you think that the Ocean Club management team and employees will suddenly one day respond with something that satisfies your demands for more information?  Or, what purpose does it serve for owners to continue to ask the team and the employees when it clearly is causing friction between them?  You've clearly gotten the message by now, I hope, that Marriott/MVCI/your BOD is playing hardball, so why waste time in an effort to which they've proven they will not respond, and which must negatively impact an owner's vacation even more than it already has been?

I still don't understand how taking useless steps furthers your agenda.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> Here are the pics
> 
> http://share.shutterfly.com/share/r...f8ad5209fef06cbbd47cbb382743&sid=8YcNG7VmybuA
> 
> Let me know if you have any problems viewing.http://share.shutterfly.com/action/welcome?sid=8YcNG7VmybuA



Thanks.  I love the corridor and master bedroom schemes.


----------



## Luckybee

tlwmkw said:


> Luckybee,
> 
> I think you are making a wise decision by selling.  I can understand that you feel Marriott has let you down and don't want to continue to own there.  The best choice for owners now is to stick with the resort and wait until the renovation is done and enjoy it, or to sell, as you are doing.  Anyone who continues to own really needs to be sure that the building is properly repaired/maintained and won't have ongoing problems.



Although we havent as I said totally made the decision(rephrase...lol...I have dh hasnt , your paragraph hit it dead on for me. Because of the trust issues I personally dont feel comfortable that the way the property has been managed so far by Marriott and the current board we could ever be sure that there wont be ongoing problems. 
I guess without Allan or someone similiar to him on the board I would feel that way likely because of our initial experiences when the Oc was first around. 
I dont know if I mentioned any of this before(and Im too lazy to read the entire thread again to find out , but many moons ago there was a massive power failure on the island while we were in Aruba. It wasnt by any means exclusive to Marriott but what was exclusive to Marriott was the lock down of info. Everyone of course wanted to know when power would be restored, and when the island went on revolving outages when we would have power at our resort. We were getting all of our info from the Hyatt concierge who we knew from previous trips. This was the same info that all the resorts were provided by the goverment and that all other resorts were providing to their customers, and most resorts were giving refunds or depositing weeks for them into II or RCI if people wanted to leave(ie full power not be expected for days). The guests at both the oc and hotel were being told either "we dont know", or "it should be soon" and nothing of the updates. We were candidly told by one employeee who was embarrassed when we referred to the info we obtained elsewhere that they had been specfically told not to tell guests any of the updates because "it would cause problems". Instead of the offer other properties were making we were offered a wine and cheese party...lol. Of course all the angry owners showed up at the party wanting info and the managers left rather than answer questions. 
Over the years there seemed to be this type of corporate culture in Aruba at the Marriott properties. I've heard of other examples in a similiar vein of things that transpired when friends were there. For us the bright light was always Allan and his open communication style. With him running things I never worried about who was minding the store. Quite frankly the timeshare never crossed my mind unless we were planning our trip 
Now with the way things were imho handled by Marriott and the current board I doubt that I could , " be sure that the building is properly repaired/maintained and won't have ongoing problems." The question I keep asking myself is how would we ever know in this current lockdown climate and what would prevent the same type of thing from happening again ?
Like I said , I dont know what we'll do but the whole thing is just sad.


----------



## Eric

Once again your post has no substance. It's just a one sided opinion with no facts. This is what we learned ::

1. Questions were asked that we don't know the nature of, and they were told to ask again offline
2. Many guest getting towels ( 1 or 2?) said they won't buy in Ocean Club under these circumstances.What did you do, print out 20 pages of TUG for them to read ?
3. Surf Club was overbooked. What does that mean, people are sleeping at the pool ?
4. chairs to close to each other cause mold


The good news is you will let us know if anything intresting comes up next week ? What, maybe the ice cream will be melted in the onsite store ?





marksue said:


> "I am currently on site and at the Owner's Reception last evening the latest resort information was poorly presented. The Management Team tried their best to dodge all the tough questions and asked quite a few owner's to take it off-line. In what seems to be the new norm, they seem to not be telling the whole truth. At the Towel Hut this morning many guests were very curious as to the real state of the union and said very clearly that they would never buy at the Ocean Club with these circumstances. I'll let you know if anything of interest comes up in the next week. One item of note is that many folks from the overbooked Surf Club are finding their way onto the Ocean Club beach and pool area. The new idea of chaining all the beach chairs up to the Palapas is going to cause a serious mold problem on all the chairs if they are not cleaned regularly, which it appears is not happening. But this is the least of our problems..."


----------



## Luckybee

Eric said:


> Once again your post has no substance. It's just a one sided opinion with no facts. This is what we learned ::
> 
> 1. Questions were asked that we don't know the nature of, and they were told to ask again offline
> 2. Many guest getting towels ( 1 or 2?) said they won't buy in Ocean Club under these circumstances.What did you do, print out 20 pages of TUG for them to read ?
> 3. Surf Club was overbooked. What does that mean, people are sleeping at the pool ?
> 4. chairs to close to each other cause mold



Eric....yours is the post with no substance..do we really need to nitpic in this fashion....Lets deal with your post in the same way shall we:

"Once again your post has no substance. It's just a one sided opinion with no facts"

First of all tMark hasnt given his opinion on anything. He has simply passed on an email he received. What facts did you want....the ones that say Marriott can do no wrong over and over again. Sorry but you wont get that from many owners of the OC.

"1. Questions were asked that we don't know the nature of, and they were told to ask again offline "

And your point is ? Gee you arent being told everything...too bad so sad...what does this have to do with an opinion? Owners have asked questions, they arent getting answers. Pretty simple...what part of it did you not understand?

"2. Many guest getting towels ( 1 or 2?) said they won't buy in Ocean Club under these circumstances.What did you do, print out 20 pages of TUG for them to read ?"

Like it or not Eric, these issues have been a very hot topic by many at the OC. Although we didnt take our trips this year we have a number of other friends who have and all have told me that this is a constant discussion round the pool , beach, and yes towel hut, whiich by the way over the years(and Im sure not being an owner you wouldnt be aware of) was a general meet and talk place for owners in the early morning. Wouldnt need to print out Tug, people are talking about it at the property.

"3. Surf Club was overbooked. What does that mean, people are sleeping at the pool ?"

No actually they dont sleep at the pool. When it happens(and this wouldnt be the first time, they are usually put up in either the OC or hotel, and visa versa). It also happens when the AC breaks down at the two timeshare properties...but only if you complain about it very loudly...otherwise they leave you in the hot room without AC for the entire week !

"4. chairs to close to each other cause mold "

I didnt know this...guess I learned something new. I also wasnt aware of the chaining of the chairs policy. 

"The good news is you will let us know if anything intresting comes up next week ?"

I hope so!

"What, maybe the ice cream will be melted in the onsite store ?"

Well this isnt really something as an owner that would be of interest to me, but obviously since Eric wants to know perhaps Mark you could try to find out for him.



Thanks for passing on the email Mark. It's appreciated by this owner!


----------



## lovearuba

*Chained Chairs*

Hi
I did notice this when I was there last week.  It did not seem to be a big deal since the staff are in the area and love to unlock them and set up your chairs with your towels for a tip.  I personally think they are trying to prevent non-Marriott folks from using the chairs.  It kind of makes sense   This is a public beach and since the chairs belong to Marriott, I imagine a lot of folks would just think its okay to use them.   I am one of those owners who don't want to share resources with the surf, this seems to be another measure to help ensure that.

I dont kno w if this will cause a mold problem but I'm sure that our maintence fees should have enough in reserves to purchase new chairs..., Only kidding!!!  Thought I would add some levity to the discussion.


----------



## Eric

For the record, I own at Surf Club and know it well. Also for the record, many people besides me, think Mark has mishandled this from day one and will get absolutely nowhere with just whinning and no evidence. I actually think he has done alot more harm than good at Ocean Club ,which is a shame.  




Luckybee said:


> Eric....yours is the post with no substance..do we really need to nitpic in this fashion....Lets deal with your post in the same way shall we:
> 
> "Once again your post has no substance. It's just a one sided opinion with no facts"
> 
> First of all tMark hasnt given his opinion on anything. He has simply passed on an email he received. What facts did you want....the ones that say Marriott can do no wrong over and over again. Sorry but you wont get that from many owners of the OC.
> 
> "1. Questions were asked that we don't know the nature of, and they were told to ask again offline "
> 
> And your point is ? Gee you arent being told everything...too bad so sad...what does this have to do with an opinion? Owners have asked questions, they arent getting answers. Pretty simple...what part of it did you not understand?
> 
> "2. Many guest getting towels ( 1 or 2?) said they won't buy in Ocean Club under these circumstances.What did you do, print out 20 pages of TUG for them to read ?"
> 
> Like it or not Eric, these issues have been a very hot topic by many at the OC. Although we didnt take our trips this year we have a number of other friends who have and all have told me that this is a constant discussion round the pool , beach, and yes towel hut, whiich by the way over the years(and Im sure not being an owner you wouldnt be aware of) was a general meet and talk place for owners in the early morning. Wouldnt need to print out Tug, people are talking about it at the property.
> 
> "3. Surf Club was overbooked. What does that mean, people are sleeping at the pool ?"
> 
> No actually they dont sleep at the pool. When it happens(and this wouldnt be the first time, they are usually put up in either the OC or hotel, and visa versa). It also happens when the AC breaks down at the two timeshare properties...but only if you complain about it very loudly...otherwise they leave you in the hot room without AC for the entire week !
> 
> "4. chairs to close to each other cause mold "
> 
> I didnt know this...guess I learned something new. I also wasnt aware of the chaining of the chairs policy.
> 
> "The good news is you will let us know if anything intresting comes up next week ?"
> 
> I hope so!
> 
> "What, maybe the ice cream will be melted in the onsite store ?"
> 
> Well this isnt really something as an owner that would be of interest to me, but obviously since Eric wants to know perhaps Mark you could try to find out for him.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for passing on the email Mark. It's appreciated by this owner!


----------



## Luckybee

Eric said:


> For the record, I own at Surf Club and know it well. Also for the record, many people besides me, think Mark has mishandled this from day one and will get absolutely nowhere with just whinning and no evidence. I actually think he has done alot more harm than good at Ocean Club ,which is a shame.



What "many people" ? The few here on tug who are hypercritical of everything Mark says or does ? Im not concerned about those "many people". Many owners, and make no mistake there are many, are quite pleased that Mark has taken this thing as far as he has so far amid ludicrous daily critiques here, when many others would have simply rolled over and played dead. Has everything been handled perfectly by Mark ? I dont personally know Mark from Adam, have never spoken with him, and, I'll be the first to say it hasn't been handled perfectly but for different reasons than I suspect that the "many" here might think. Imho too much info was provided here in an effort to get the message out which allowed Marriott to cover their tracks to some extent. But more harm than good...Absolutely not...he has without a doubt provided a great service to the owners which hopefully after all is litigated and the dust settles and perhaps, just perhaps a new board is appointed his actions will be more appreciated. 

I guess maybe where you and I may differ, and where I also differ in my opinion from Allen is that I actually hope that at the end of the day Marriott would walk away from the OC. Maybe hope is too strong of a word. Let me say instead that if they continue operating in this way I think "many" of the old owners like us, will consider jumping ship.  I would prefer to see changes that would allow me to regain my trust in the OC, and if Marriott wont abide by the needed changes then I would rather seem them out. If that means the potential to devalue the property(which I dont btw see as inevitable) then so be it. When we bought it is true that we did so partially because of the Marriott name. Now that name is meaningless to me, and imho, they are currently the ones who "are doing more harm than good"


----------



## Eric

I would love to see Marriott make the owners happy but what some of the owners want is not realistic. As far as Mark, I am not sure what exactly he has accomplish as of yet. As far as I can see, he has pissed off Marriott to the point where they are playing hardball and now the only way to win is in court which just plain won't happen. I think the state of CA made a better case against OJ than Mark has. As far as leaving the Marriott flag, the damage has been done and most owners would not approve it. Why would Marriott dump Ocean Club ? the HOA has done everything the way they want.
the reality is the owners need Marriott more than Marriott needs the owners at this point. 

As far as your first line about "The few here on tug who are hypercritical of everything Mark says or does ?", me not counted, people like Dave, John , Eric & Sue have made some educated observations and Mark has done nothing in my eyes to help defend his postion. 





Luckybee said:


> What "many people" ? The few here on tug who are hypercritical of everything Mark says or does ? Im not concerned about those "many people". Many owners, and make no mistake there are many, are quite pleased that Mark has taken this thing as far as he has so far amid ludicrous daily critiques here, when many others would have simply rolled over and played dead. Has everything been handled perfectly by Mark ? I dont personally know Mark from Adam, have never spoken with him, and, I'll be the first to say it hasn't been handled perfectly but for different reasons than I suspect that the "many" here might think. Imho too much info was provided here in an effort to get the message out which allowed Marriott to cover their tracks to some extent. But more harm than good...Absolutely not...he has without a doubt provided a great service to the owners which hopefully after all is litigated and the dust settles and perhaps, just perhaps a new board is appointed his actions will be more appreciated.
> 
> I guess maybe where you and I may differ, and where I also differ in my opinion from Allen is that I actually hope that at the end of the day Marriott would walk away from the OC. Maybe hope is too strong of a word. Let me say instead that if they continue operating in this way I think "many" of the old owners like us, will consider jumping ship.  I would prefer to see changes that would allow me to regain my trust in the OC, and if Marriott wont abide by the needed changes then I would rather seem them out. If that means the potential to devalue the property(which I dont btw see as inevitable) then so be it. When we bought it is true that we did so partially because of the Marriott name. Now that name is meaningless to me, and imho, they are currently the ones who "are doing more harm than good"


----------



## Luckybee

Eric said:


> I would love to say Marriott make the owners happy but what some of the owners want is not realistic. As far as Mark, I am not sure what exactly he has accomplish as of yet. As far as I can see, he has pissed off Marriott to the point where they are playing hardball and now the only way to win is in court which just plain won't happen. I think the state of CA made a better case against OJ than Mark has. As far as leaving the Marriott flag, the damage has been done and most owners would not approve it. Why would Marriott dump Ocean Club ? the HOA has done everything the way they want.
> the reality is the owners need Marriott more than Marriott needs the owners at this point.
> 
> As far as your first line about "The few here on tug who are hypercritical of everything Mark says or does ?", me not counted, people like Dave, John , Eric & Sue have made some educated observations and Mark has done nothing in my eyes to help defend his postion.




Lets agree to disagree Eric. I say that because quite frankly i disagree with just about everything in your post , other than the fact that Mark has pissed off Marriott.  I also agree that you dont see what Mark has accomplished yet  Is Marriott playing hardball, absolutely, but where we do disagree is that they were playing hardball long before they had ever heard of Mark. I truly wish that any one of the few critics on this board would take the time to personally speak with Allan or any of the others that he could direct you to speak with. I'd be surprised if the perspective didnt change after that. 
As for the chance of success in court, well, lets just say that I learned long ago , to never predict what will happen in a courtroom. So where we disagree here is that based on the portion of  info you have you're prepared to state that the owners dont have a chance, whereas I will only say that imho it might be interesting 
On the owners needing Marriott, well lets just say it depends on the owner. I've given you my opinion, and I'd be just as happy if they left(probably more so). Im sure for an avid trader then yes that could be a downside,but only if another major didnt step in. Other than that I see no downside to the owners at all, only an upside , that is, no longer having a board controlled completely by Marriott and cronies.


----------



## lovearuba

Eric said:


> IWhy would Marriott dump Ocean Club ? the HOA has done everything the way they want.
> the reality is the owners need Marriott more than Marriott needs the owners at this point.
> 
> As far as your first line about "The few here on tug who are hypercritical of everything Mark says or does ?", me not counted, people like Dave, John , Eric & Sue have made some educated observations and Mark has done nothing in my eyes to help defend his postion.


 
You forget what influence the word of mouth has for the reputation of a large corporation like Marriott, dont think this thread isnt affecting them because it is or they wouldnt be trying to influence the folks that signed up. They also would not bother to take the time to post here, but they have.  

Marriott needs all of their customers and it is really hard to build trust once its lost and extremely hard to get good customers back. As for educated observations, I'm not sure why you think the observations by folks that disagree with this cause are any more educated than the folks that are involved. I dont see credentials of lawyers involved here and much of the advice provided by some of those so-called educated posters has not worked. What I see is that they are trying to educate themselves on the particulars which is why they are asking so many questions. If this thread serves that purpose as well as the intended purpose that's fine.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> For us the bright light was always Allan and his open communication style. With him running things I never worried about who was minding the store.



Refresh my memory, who was president of the BoD when the decision was made to have a separate mgt staff for the OC? Is that not one of contributing factors to the increase in m/f?


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Eric....yours is the post with no substance..do we really need to nitpic in this fashion....Lets deal with your post in the same way shall we:
> 
> "Once again your post has no substance. It's just a one sided opinion with no facts"
> 
> First of all tMark hasnt given his opinion on anything. *He has simply passed on an email he received.* What facts did you want....the ones that say Marriott can do no wrong over and over again. Sorry but you wont get that from many owners of the OC.



I am sorry, but Mark has played this card too many times. Posting some third hand account that is supposedly further proof of owner unrest or the MVCI conspiracy. It is just heresy, nothing more, nothing else.

And I would gladly speak with Allan. But I make decisions based on facts, not emotions. So if the call would be a more of what Allan has posted here or what his proxy has posted, then it would be a waste of time of both parties time. I have no doubt that Allan can speak passionately about the situation at OC, but I am only interested the facts of the case. Not heresy or innuendo, just the facts. 

And in his posts, he has been short on that side of the ledger. And the few offered are presented with such bias, it just undermines his creditability.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> You forget what influence the word of mouth has for the reputation of a large corporation like Marriott, dont think this thread isnt affecting them because it is or they wouldnt be trying to influence the folks that signed up. They also would not bother to take the time to post here, but they have.
> 
> Marriott needs all of their customers and it is really hard to build trust once its lost and extremely hard to get good customers back. As for educated observations, I'm not sure why you think the observations by folks that disagree with this cause are any more educated than the folks that are involved. *I dont see credentials of lawyers involved here and much of the advice provided by some of those so-called educated posters has not worked.* What I see is that they are trying to educate themselves on the particulars which is why they are asking so many questions. If this thread serves that purpose as well as the intended purpose that's fine.



True, but only because the one item that DaveM suggested was so poorly handled. I do not think Dave suggested doing it with no regard for the by-laws.

And nothing else was tried. This played out exactly the way Mark intended it to. If you read his early posts, and contrast them with the situation today, you will see he has a knack for self-fulling prophecy. As I noted many posts ago, he predicted on another board exactly where this would end, and it has. Your post even supports that, suggesting that the meaningful advice could only have come from a TUG member who is a lawyer. Do other timeshare owners have to be a lawyer to offer advice on how to deal with the BoD? Based on our experience owning and being involved with timeshares BoD, some of us actually know more than your average lawyer in that regard.

I think one day, you will come to realize that you were only an actor in this play. I am sure many owners appreciate him fighting the battle in the hope that it will bring some relief. This will end one of two ways - current representation will bail once MVCI calls the bluff, or the tide will turn once the BoD has to levy a special assessment to pay mounting legal bills.

And if current representation was previously retained by the BoD under Allan’s tenure, I think this effort will be short-lived. In the US, that would be motion #1 on the defendant’s plan of attack.

But I am neither a lawyer or a OC owner, so I recognize that my opinion matters little in your eyes.


----------



## Luckybee

Actually Ecwich I think what she was saying(at least what I took from it ) was that Mark and the others on the committee are in fact getting competent legal advice(and it isnt from a tug member as far as I know). The naysayers may beg to differ on that but based on the info I have Im not prepared to 2nd guess that advice because I am not a lawyer who specializes in this type of work. Sorry to say Imho it makes far more sense for Mark to follow that advice than the advice he gets here. Im sure if LoveAruba meant something other than that she'll correct me


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> ... I truly wish that any one of the few critics on this board would take the time to personally speak with Allan or any of the others that he could direct you to speak with. I'd be surprised if the perspective didnt change after that. ...



We could both probably produce countless friends and family members who would testify to our goodness of character and likable personalities.  But after reading everything I've written here, knowing that you have a different perspective than me and that we disagree on most every aspect of this discussion, would you honestly expect that if you talked to me in person then your disagreement with my viewpoint would change?

If the question was turned and asked of me about you, I know I'd say, "Of course not!"  And I'd expect the same response from you.

This medium, online message boards, may not be the very best communication method, but it is certainly a valid one, and it is certainly possible to gain an understanding of someone's perspective/opinion by reading here.  What I've learned from both Allan's and Mark's direct communications here is that nothing they could say to me in person would change my opinion that they have not served their cause as best they possibly could, that they have actually harmed the cause and indirectly, Allan himself.  They would never be able to convince me that Marriott/MVCI/the board should have responded more informally to the ranting and raving before things got so out of hand, because I think that sets a dangerous precedent that would open Marriott to litigation.  Or that the actions Marriott has taken since the inception of this thread, as they have been related here, are somehow illegal or not contractually enforceable.

Even IF (and that's a gigantic "IF") Allan was to produce in person smoking-gun no-room-for-doubt concrete evidence that would prove that Mr. Marriott himself should pay all of the Ocean Club's owners' fees for the next fifteen years as restitution for wrongs, I still wouldn't think that Allan or Mark used honorable or respectable methods to fight a good fight.  I'd walk away shaking my head and wondering why they engaged in all this drama, and why I let myself get drawn into what could then be called a stupid game, when the situation could have been resolved almost before it began.  But I still wouldn't change my opinion of their actions.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Actually Ecwich I think what she was saying(at least what I took from it ) was that Mark and the others on the committee are in fact getting competent legal advice(and it isnt from a tug member as far as I know). The naysayers may beg to differ on that but based on the info I have Im not prepared to 2nd guess that advice because I am not a lawyer who specializes in this type of work. Sorry to say Imho it makes far more sense for Mark to follow that advice than the advice he gets here. Im sure if LoveAruba meant something other than that she'll correct me



I absolutely agree that Mark should follow the advice of his legal counsel.

I cannot read the words I highlighted in the same context however, particularly given the last half of the sentence.


----------



## Luckybee

SueDonJ said:


> We could both probably produce countless friends and family members who would testify to our goodness of character and likable personalities.  But after reading everything I've written here, knowing that you have a different perspective than me and that we disagree on most every aspect of this discussion, would you honestly expect that if you talked to me in person then your disagreement with my viewpoint would change?
> 
> If the question was turned and asked of me about you, I know I'd say, "Of course not!"  And I'd expect the same response from you.
> 
> This medium, online message boards, may not be the very best communication method, but it is certainly a valid one, and it is certainly possible to gain an understanding of someone's perspective/opinion by reading here.  What I've learned from both Allan's and Mark's direct communications here is that nothing they could say to me in person would change my opinion that they have not served their cause as best they possibly could, that they have actually harmed the cause and indirectly, Allan himself.  They would never be able to convince me that Marriott/MVCI/the board should have responded more informally to the ranting and raving before things got so out of hand, because I think that sets a dangerous precedent that would open Marriott to litigation.  Or that the actions Marriott has taken since the inception of this thread, as they have been related here, are somehow illegal or not contractually enforceable.
> 
> Even IF (and that's a gigantic "IF") Allan was to produce in person smoking-gun no-room-for-doubt concrete evidence that would prove that Mr. Marriott himself should pay all of the Ocean Club's owners' fees for the next fifteen years as restitution for wrongs, I still wouldn't think that Allan or Mark used honorable or respectable methods to fight a good fight.  I'd walk away shaking my head and wondering why they engaged in all this drama, and why I let myself get drawn into what could then be called a stupid game, when the situation could have been resolved almost before it began.  But I still wouldn't change my opinion of their actions.




It has nothing to do with someone being likeable ...rather when one has the opportunity to hear the information from the horses mouth (so to speak) as to various things that have transpired and steps taken( which had nothing to do with Mark and began long before Mark ever got involved)...I dunno, I guess Im just not one to rely on info from a BB. And yes if you were personally involved in an issue that I was interested in, and had first hand knowledge, someone who has seen the radical changes and efforts to cover, I would be more inclined to listen to you than someone who hasnt been involved for years...but I guess we see that differently too...lol. 
I must admit i do find it amusing that from Allan you would need the "in person smoking-gun no-room-for-doubt concrete evidence ", whereas from Marriott and the board of cronies you're prepared to accept anything they throw out .


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> I absolutely agree that Mark should follow the advice of his legal counsel.



It's almost unbelievable that any legal counsel would not strongly advise Mark that he should stop posting here in the manner in which he does.  The first rule is, do nothing which may in any way harm your case.  The fact that he is still posting here makes me continue to question whether a qualified attorney has been retained. 



ecwinch said:


> I cannot read the words I highlighted in the same context however, particularly given the last half of the sentence.



I agree with your interpretation of LoveAruba's post, as well as your response to it.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> It has nothing to do with someone being likeable ...



Except that I'd be more inclined to completely discount someone's opinion based on the fact that they were UNlikeable, as evidenced by no one coming forward to vouch for their character.  Contrast that with me disagreeing with your opinions based on _their_ merit as opposed to _yours_.



Luckybee said:


> rather when one has the opportunity to hear the information from the horses mouth (so to speak) as to various things that have transpired and steps taken( which had nothing to do with Mark and began long before Mark ever got involved)...I dunno, I guess Im just not one to rely on info from a BB.



Then what purpose does it serve for either Mark (as Allan's proxy) or Allan to write on this message board?  Are we to not take them at their word here?  That sounds counterproductive.



Luckybee said:


> And yes if you were personally involved in an issue that I was interested in, and had first hand knowledge, someone who has seen the radical changes and efforts to cover, I would be more inclined to listen to you than someone who hasnt been involved for years...but I guess we see that differently too...lol.



Not if what you knew of me from previous dealings made you question why my delivery methods needed to be contentious, you wouldn't.  If my first contact with you was rambling and biased and disjointed, you'd wonder what my motive was.  That's how I viewed Allan and Mark from what was the beginning of this situation for me, anyway, and that's why I still suspect their delivery.



Luckybee said:


> I must admit i do find it amusing that from Allan you would need the "in person smoking-gun no-room-for-doubt concrete evidence ", whereas from Marriott and the board of cronies you're prepared to accept anything they throw out .



Then you're not comprehending anything I've written here.  I don't disagree with the actions/decisions of Marriott/MVCI/the BOD because while there is _no_ smoking gun to discredit them, there _is_ concrete, tangible, recorded information that validates their actions/decisions.  If you can show me somewhere in this thread where I've taken their actions at face value without an explanation for why, then produce it.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> I must admit i do find it amusing that from Allan you would need the "in person smoking-gun no-room-for-doubt concrete evidence ", whereas from Marriott and the board of cronies you're prepared to accept anything they throw out .



I cannot speak for Sue, but for me it is based on having first hand personal knowledge of mis-representations made by Mark and Allan. It undermines their creditability. Forces me to question everything they say. That happens when you play fast and loose with the truth.

I do not have the level of experience with the MVCI BoD. They might be equally as guilty, I do not know.

So when someone I know is biased says the sky is grey, and someone else says the sky is blue, who am I inclined to believe?


----------



## Luckybee

Finally there is something we can agree on. Ive said for awhile that too much info was being provided on these boards. It is never a good idea when preparing for court to put this kind of info in a public forum. 

That said, there are lawyers who, for one reason or another, would disagree !


SueDonJ said:


> It's almost unbelievable that any legal counsel would not strongly advise Mark that he should stop posting here in the manner in which he does.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Finally there is something we can agree on. Ive said for awhile that too much info was being provided on these boards. It is never a good idea when preparing for court to put this kind of info in a public forum.
> 
> That said, there are lawyers who, for one reason or another, would disagree !



There are no purple hearts awarded for self-inflicted wounds. No one has made Mark post anything here. If you have reached that conclusion, but the leader of your crusade has not, one has to naturally question why that is so.

Apply the same standard to your leadership, as you have to the BoD whose decisions you are attacking.


----------



## Luckybee

SueDonJ said:


> Except that I'd be more inclined to completely discount someone's opinion based on the fact that they were UNlikeable, as evidenced by no one coming forward to vouch for their character.  Contrast that with me disagreeing with your opinions based on _their_ merit as opposed to _yours_.
> 
> 
> 
> Then what purpose does it serve for either Mark (as Allan's proxy) or Allan to write on this message board?  Are we to not take them at their word here?  That sounds counterproductive.
> 
> 
> 
> Not if what you knew of me from previous dealings made you question why my delivery methods needed to be contentious, you wouldn't.  If my first contact with you was rambling and biased and disjointed, you'd wonder what my motive was.  That's how I viewed Allan and Mark from what was the beginning of this situation for me, anyway, and that's why I still suspect their delivery.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're not comprehending anything I've written here.  I don't disagree with the actions/decisions of Marriott/MVCI/the BOD because while there is _no_ smoking gun to discredit them, there _is_ concrete, tangible, recorded information that validates their actions/decisions.  If you can show me somewhere in this thread where I've taken their actions at face value without an explanation for why, then produce it.



Knowing what I know of the situation, I am confident that Mark is by no means Allans proxy, as you and others continue to refer to him. As I indicated before, these issues arose long before Mark got involved and Allan was already trying repeatedly to deal with them in a less than public manner. I supect,( but one would have to ask Mark), that the reason for posting here, certainly initially, was to get theinfo out to those owners who may not already be aware of the situation. Very few of the owners at the OC are active posters here, and Im not sure that was the best idea but it has accomplished one thing...it certainly has people talking, and has prevented some sales ! Whether you think that is a good thing or a bad one would of course depend on your perspective i suppose.
Ive never known Allan to be rambling and disjointed, and I dont feel that any of his posts or letters were of that variety but I guess we see that differently too. I guess another difference is that you keep blending them together, when in reality they didnt even know each other before this began.
I wont get into the boards explanations ...suffice to say that imho an explantion without merit is equivalent to no explanation.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> There are no purple hearts awarded for self-inflicted wounds. No one has made Mark post anything here. If you have reached that conclusion, but the leader of your crusade has not, one has to naturally question why that is so.
> 
> Apply the same standard to your leadership, as you have to the BoD whose decisions you are attacking.



Whatever gave you the idea that Mark was "my" leadership? I have added my name to his list but Mark is by far not the only person working on these issues. Doesnt mean I dont appreciate his efforts however  And Mark is a big boy who doesnt need me to tell him how best to get his message out. Just because I have a different philosophy doesnt mean he has to follow it


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> Finally there is something we can agree on. Ive said for awhile that too much info was being provided on these boards. It is never a good idea when preparing for court to put this kind of info in a public forum.



On the contrary, a public offering of simply the facts could invite others who have been similarly harmed to join a legal effort.  That would be a valid reason for an attorney to suggest that various communication mediums be utilized to bolster a case.

It's Mark's manner of posting which hurts this cause - his opinionated, biased, unsubstantiated allegations against, and repeated use of second-hand anonymous sources to slander, Marriott/MVCI/Aruba Ocean Club's BOD.  No competent attorney would condone Mark's posts contained herein. 



Luckybee said:


> That said, there are lawyers who, for one reason or another, would disagree !



Yes, the incompetent ones.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Whatever gave you the idea that Mark was "my" leadership? I have added my name to his list but Mark is by far not the only person working on these issues. Doesnt mean I dont appreciate his efforts however  And Mark is a big boy who doesnt need me to tell him how best to get his message out. Just because I have a different philosophy doesnt mean he has to follow it



You did not provide him with a proxy to call the special meeting? To vote on your behalf?


----------



## Luckybee

I think you'll find that no one provided Mark with a "proxy" for either situation, as the bylaws make no mention of a proxy being needed to call the meeting, and it certainly wasnt Mark who had the majority of proxies for the general meeting...I dont think he had any...but he'd have to answer that himself.
I also think you would find that only after a special meting was called would proxies then be needed to vote at a meeting....it isnt a one step process imho, and that may be what one of the issues will turn out to be later.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Knowing what I know of the situation, I am confident that Mark is by no means Allans proxy, as you and others continue to refer to him.



Mark must have found that engineers report on his own. He has already retracted his early statements that Allan suggested the lawsuit. 

Your right, I doubt that Allan has not had much influence on Mark's decisions at all. 

Oh, yes - I believe in the tooth fairy and that we never landed on the moon. 
:rofl:


----------



## SueDonJ

SueDonJ said:


> If you can show me somewhere in this thread where I've taken their actions at face value without an explanation for why, then produce it.





Luckybee said:


> I wont get into the boards explanations ...suffice to say that imho an explantion without merit is equivalent to no explanation.



Throughout the discussion you've given no response which amounts to an argument against any of my positions, other than to say that you think it's "silly" for me to contribute anything because I am not an owner at Aruba Ocean Club.

That's fine, it's as valid a reason as any for you to not respond to my particular posts.  But now when I asked point-blank for you to produce something I'd written where a supporting explanation wasn't included, you're saying that you discounted all those posts of mine because my stated opinions had no merit?

Well, that's also fine.  Except your two reasons are completely different.  I don't suppose you'll want to go back and revisit any of those posts to point out exactly what you disagree with?


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> Mark must have found that engineers report on his own. He has already retracted his early statements that Allan suggested the lawsuit.
> 
> Your right, I doubt that Allan has had much influence on Mark's decisions at all.
> 
> Oh, yes - I believe in the tooth fairy and that we never landed on the moon.
> :rofl:



I didnt mean to leave the impression that Allan wasnt influencing Mark's decisions...wasnt what I meant at all....I have no idea whether Allan shared info with Mark...what I meant to convey was that I am aware that Allan struggle to get something accomplished began long before Mark and other owners got involved. All i am saying is that Mark doesnt speak for Allan anymore than I do.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> I think you'll find that no one provided Mark with a "proxy" for either situation, as the bylaws make no mention of a proxy being needed to call the meeting, and it certainly wasnt Mark who had the majority of proxies for the general meeting...I dont think he had any...but he'd have to answer that himself.
> I also think you would find that only after a special meting was called would proxies then be needed to vote at a meeting....it isnt a one step process imho, and that may be what one of the issues will turn out to be later.



Sorry, this part of the logic breaks down completely.

Someone read the by-laws, and saw what?

Despite asking this question repeatedly I have never got a straight answer on how the "crusaders" thought this would play out.

It requires 10% of the owners to call a special meeting. Ok. Once the meeting is called, then what happens? What is the agenda? What is going to be decided in this special meeting, and how will members that cannot attend the meeting in ARUBA, know what to vote on? How will they vote?


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> You did not provide him with a proxy to call the special meeting? To vote on your behalf?





Luckybee said:


> I think you'll find that no one provided Mark with a "proxy" for either situation, as the bylaws make no mention of a proxy being needed to call the meeting, and it certainly wasnt Mark who had the majority of proxies for the general meeting...I dont think he had any...but he'd have to answer that himself.
> I also think you would find that only after a special meting was called would proxies then be needed to vote at a meeting....it isnt a one step process imho, and that may be what one of the issues will turn out to be later.



I didn't think that Mark held any proxies for that submission to try to call for a special meeting because that was only an attempted petition.  _[Edit:]_  If the petition had been correct/accepted and the special meeting had been scheduled to put forth the motion for an ownership-wide vote to recall three members of the BOD, the proxies for that meeting would have been drawn up and delivered to the owners based on the correct submission to enact the bylaw provision.*

_[*Beginning on page 14 here is a detailed explanation of this process, as well as some interesting but incomplete information about the anticipated next steps that would have to be taken in order for the ownership group to force the (hopefully newly-elected) BOD to enact new bylaws and provisions related to "transparency."]_ 

But when I referred to Mark as Allan's proxy above, I meant proxy in the sense that Mark was Allan's mouthpiece for purposes of this thread while Allan was still a sitting member of the BOD.  I'd be very surprised to learn that Allan isn't and hasn't been the mastermind.


----------



## Luckybee

SueDonJ said:


> Throughout the discussion you've given no response which amounts to an argument against any of my positions, other than to say that you think it's "silly" for me to contribute anything because I am not an owner at Aruba Ocean Club.
> 
> That's fine, it's as valid a reason as any for you to not respond to my particular posts.  But now when I asked point-blank for you to produce something I'd written where a supporting explanation wasn't included, you're saying that you discounted all those posts of mine because my stated opinions had no merit?
> 
> Well, that's also fine.  Except your two reasons are completely different.  I don't suppose you'll want to go back and revisit any of those posts to point out exactly what you disagree with?



My exact words were "I wont get into the boards explanations ...suffice to say that imho an explantion without merit is equivalent to no explanation"...the without merit comment was clearly in reference to THE BOARD....where did i mention you in this comment? 

I havent changed my opinion that I dont understand the interest by non owners...but thats why there is vanilla and chocolate !


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> Sorry, this part of the logic breaks down completely.
> 
> Someone read the by-laws, and saw what?
> 
> Despite asking this question repeatedly I have never got a straight answer on how the "crusaders" thought this would play out.
> 
> It requires 10% of the owners to call a special meeting. Ok. Once the meeting is called, then what happens? What is the agenda? What is going to be decided in this special meeting, and how will members that cannot attend the meeting in ARUBA, know what to vote on? How will they vote?



On these issues it isnt for me to say...and I would be personally disappointed if anyone were to provide an answer to this here .


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> My exact words were "I wont get into the boards explanations ...suffice to say that imho an explantion without merit is equivalent to no explanation"...the without merit comment was clearly in reference to THE BOARD....where did i mention you in this comment? ...



Riiiiight.  You responded to this:



SueDonJ said:


> ... Then you're not comprehending anything I've written here.  I don't disagree with the actions/decisions of Marriott/MVCI/the BOD because while there is _no_ smoking gun to discredit them, there _is_ concrete, tangible, recorded information that validates their actions/decisions.  If you can show me somewhere in this thread where I've taken their actions at face value without an explanation for why, then produce it.



with this:



Luckybee said:


> ... I wont get into the boards explanations ...suffice to say that imho an explantion without merit is equivalent to no explanation.



But you were writing about "THE BOARD."  What then, exactly, is "THE BOARD?"  Because it sure wasn't mentioned in anything I asked you about.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> I didnt mean to leave the impression that Allan wasnt influencing Mark's decisions...wasnt what I meant at all....I have no idea whether Allan shared info with Mark...what I meant to convey was that I am aware that Allan struggle to get something accomplished began long before Mark and other owners got involved. All i am saying is that Mark doesnt speak for Allan anymore than I do.



Your specific statement was that you were "confident that Mark is by no means Allans proxy".

Yes, Allan did struggle to get something accomplished, for as Mark posted here, in his capacity as a BoD member, there were certain things that he could not do. But serendipity, along came Mark. What a coincidence. 

Things that Allan could not say, Mark was free to say.

Information that Allan could not share, Mark was free to share.

Action that Allan could not pursue, Mark was free to do.

We might have different definitions of what a proxy is. Here is one:

Proxy may refer to one who or that which acts on behalf of someone or something else


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> On these issues it isnt for me to say...and I would be personally disappointed if anyone were to provide an answer to this here .



Maybe the By-Laws for the AOC, are completely upside down. But this is information that would have to be disclosed for a vote on any issue to occur. I fail to understand how the effort would be comprised by outlining the plan. 

How do you think this works?


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> I didn't think that Mark held any proxies for that submission to try to call for a special meeting because that was only an attempted petition.  If the petition had been correct/accepted and the special meeting had taken place to put forth the motion for an ownership-wide vote to recall three members of the BOD, the proxies would have been drawn up and delivered to the owners based on the results of that meeting.



Lets pull on that thread. 

Lets say the petition was accepted. So now a special meeting is scheduled. A notice of that meeting has be sent out, and the matter under consideration must be disclosed. 

Most members will not be able to attend. What is the process for them voting on the motion under consideration at the special meeting?


----------



## modoaruba

*my 2cents*

I have been reading this blog now from its beginning.
Its gotten very redundant with this back and forth getting nowhere but ruffling feathers stuff.
A lot of it is speculative on both sides. What if this  what if that,etc. And worse yet,this is because of that and this one meant that without merit.
To reduce this to a common denominator at this point is to wait and see what does happen when Mark presents the case through legal council.
He said he would post then.
Until then whooa. I need an Advil.


----------



## marksue

*Most members will not be able to attend. What is the process for them voting on the motion under consideration at the special meeting?*

I have responded to this before and will give it to you again.  Once the meeting is called a proxy is sent to all owners explaing the intent of the meeting and the owners vote as in any election.  You then need a quorum like in any other election.  Those that can not attend can assign the proxy as they do in any other election.

Why not let the owners have a say?


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> I have been reading this blog now from its beginning.
> Its gotten very redundant with this back and forth getting nowhere but ruffling feathers stuff.
> A lot of it is speculative on both sides. What if this  what if that,etc. And worse yet,this is because of that and this one meant that without merit.
> To reduce this to a common denominator at this point is to wait and see what does happen when Mark presents the case through legal council.
> He said he would post then.
> Until then whooa. I need an Advil.



You think this is headache-inducing?  You should take a look at the snake pop-art posted over at The Lounge!

This is why I love the message board communication method - everybody is free to contribute in whatever manner they choose at any time.  I want to write eight thousand words?  Not a problem.  He wants to sit back and watch until the end?  Not a problem.  She wants to criticize that one and praise the other one?  Not a problem.  It fits any style, any mood, any topic.  How can anyone not love it?


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> ... Why not let the owners have a say?



I completely agree.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> Why not let the owners have a say?



Because the tactics you used to solicit the 10% of members authorizations tainted the process. If a casual visitor observed the "beach" guy soliciting members owner information and not signatures (KEY POINT), do you think that OC mgt did not observe the same thing? 

How can a BoD in good conscience authorize the expense of a special meeting without knowing that the members list being presented is accurate. 

You already have a first hand account that the solicitation was not made on the basis of a recall election.

Or course the rebuttal is that "we sent an e-mail to everyone, offering to take them off the list". 

But that whole process is not the same as having a properly endorsed petition for a recall meeting from 10% of the membership. This would be a document with the intent on the top, and then a place for members to fill in their information and to properly endorse the petition. Why skip that step? 

Face it, all you did was solicit owners information. Then you sent an e-mail out saying here is what we going to do, respond if you want to be excluded from the petition. 

Two different things entirely.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> *
> 
> Why not let the owners have a say?*


*

And help me understand again why this is not still an option. If you have the required 10% support, why not follow the proper procedure, and have the recall meeting?*


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> And help me understand again why this is not still an option. If you have the required 10% support, why not follow the proper procedure, and have the recall meeting?



Exactly.

I think all this cloak-and-dagger stuff about a new attorney and forthcoming paperwork means, actually, that there is a new attempt in the works to comply with the requirements to submit a correct petition.  Who knows where things go from there?


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> You think this is headache-inducing?  You should take a look at the snake pop-art posted over at The Lounge!
> 
> I thought that there were no snakes in Aruba


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> I thought that there were no snakes in Aruba



Huh.  I didn't know that.  There's one more reason to put Aruba on an exchange list.


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I think all this cloak-and-dagger stuff about a new attorney and forthcoming paperwork means, actually, that there is a new attempt in the works to comply with the requirements to submit a correct petition.  Who knows where things go from there?



I hope you are right, and I am wrong.

And if the BoD did in fact previously retain the attorney in question, all they have to do is send a letter stating that their is conflict of interest, the attorney is violating attorney-client privilege by pursuing this action, and attorney is acting on privileged information. Then to court we go.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Huh.  I didn't know that.  There's one more reason to put Aruba on an exchange list.



But you got to like iguanas.
Sometimes they climb up to our balcony during lunch.
Got to watch the fruit,they love fruit especially bananas.


----------



## qlaval

modoaruba said:


> I thought that there were no snakes in Aruba



Who told you that? There are quite a few on the island...


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> But you got to like iguanas.
> Sometimes they climb up to our balcony during lunch.
> Got to watch the fruit,they love fruit especially bananas.



In Hawaii at the Waiohai there were these awesome cardinals like none I've seen here that not only visited your balconies, they'd walk right into your unit if the slider was open and wait patiently at the edge of the kitchen floor for you to either shoo them out or feed them.  We shoo'ed them, but only after I took pictures!


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> I hope you are right, and I am wrong.
> 
> And if the BoD did in fact previously retain the attorney in question, all they have to do is send a letter stating that their is conflict of interest, the attorney is violating attorney-client privilege by pursuing this action, and attorney is acting on privileged information. Then to court we go.



Good point.


----------



## modoaruba

qlaval said:


> Who told you that? There are quite a few on the island...



What kind you talking about? With or without feet?


----------



## qlaval

modoaruba said:


> What kind you talking about? With or without feet?


Lol.. the one without feet.

Looks like you never saw an Arubian cascabel....
(the Arubian rattlesnake)






Lots of Boa too.










Would you like to see what was on the menu...


----------



## SueDonJ

Do those things visit your balconies?!?!


----------



## modoaruba

Was that picture taken at the AOC?
If so, there goes our MFs again.


----------



## qlaval

modoaruba said:


> Was that picture taken at the AOC?
> If so, there goes our MFs again.



Of course not, they are from the wild side of the island.


----------



## modoaruba

qlaval said:


> Of course not, they are from the wild side of the island.



That could be another debatable subject here as to which side IS the REAL wild side. I've seen some very suspicious occurances on our side.
Week 3 to mention one.


----------



## lovearuba

*Low rise beach area*



modoaruba said:


> That could be another debatable subject here as to which side IS the REAL wild side. I've seen some very suspicious occurances on our side.
> Week 3 to mention one.


 
I have to say we get an eyeful each time we walk over to the low rise area.  Its amazing to see how folks dress to go to the beach.  They must have a different mirror than the ones I use.  I was with my spouse one day walking along chatting and my better half said, "Oh, tell me that is not what I think it is".    I'll leave your imaginations to figure it out.


----------



## Luckybee

SueDonJ said:


> Riiiiight.  You responded to this:
> 
> 
> 
> with this:
> 
> 
> 
> But you were writing about "THE BOARD."  What then, exactly, is "THE BOARD?"  Because it sure wasn't mentioned in anything I asked you about.




You wrote "Then you're not comprehending anything I've written here. I don't disagree with the actions/decisions of Marriott/MVCI/the BOD because while there is no smoking gun to discredit them, there is concrete, tangible, recorded information that validates their actions/decisions. If you can show me somewhere in this thread where I've taken their actions at face value without an explanation for why, then produce it."

Were you not referring to the board when you said BOD...if u meant something else then I obviously missed it....but I can assure you that I was referring to the board when I responded....if i had been referring to you I would have no qualms in saying so...I will say that I do think you're being a tad paranoid by your reaction because I cannot for the life of me figure out how you managed to find a personal insult in that post....anyway Im not going back and forth with you on whether I insulted you any longer...if you feel the overwhelming urge to think so ...well then go ahead...it isnt my problem.


----------



## Luckybee

modoaruba said:


> That could be another debatable subject here as to which side IS the REAL wild side. I've seen some very suspicious occurances on our side.
> Week 3 to mention one.



After hearing over and over again about week 3...that is one party I am truly glad we have never experienced


----------



## Luckybee

SueDonJ said:


> Do those things visit your balconies?!?!



Thankfully no...but here is a photo from a poster on one of the Aruba BB's showing what he found one morning on his new house door in Aruba when leaving with his child....gives a new meaning to the welcome sign...lol

http://s92.photobucket.com/albums/l37/anthonyhagedoorn/?action=view&current=olympuspics288.jpg


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> You wrote "Then you're not comprehending anything I've written here. I don't disagree with the actions/decisions of Marriott/MVCI/the BOD because while there is no smoking gun to discredit them, there is concrete, tangible, recorded information that validates their actions/decisions. If you can show me somewhere in this thread where I've taken their actions at face value without an explanation for why, then produce it."
> 
> Were you not referring to the board when you said BOD...if u meant something else then I obviously missed it....but I can assure you that I was referring to the board when I responded....if i had been referring to you I would have no qualms in saying so...I will say that I do think you're being a tad paranoid by your reaction because I cannot for the life of me figure out how you managed to find a personal insult in that post....anyway Im not going back and forth with you on whether I insulted you any longer...if you feel the overwhelming urge to think so ...well then go ahead...it isnt my problem.



I don't know where you get half the stuff you come up with.  Where did I say anything about being "insulted" by what you were writing?!  Confused, yes.  Insulted?  No.

And you still haven't answered my question, but you're entitled.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> Thankfully no...but here is a photo from a poster on one of the Aruba BB's showing what he found one morning on his new house door in Aruba when leaving with his child....gives a new meaning to the welcome sign...lol
> 
> http://s92.photobucket.com/albums/l37/anthonyhagedoorn/?action=view&current=olympuspics288.jpg



Holy crap.


----------



## modoaruba

lovearuba said:


> I have to say we get an eyeful each time we walk over to the low rise area.  Its amazing to see how folks dress to go to the beach.  They must have a different mirror than the ones I use.  I was with my spouse one day walking along chatting and my better half said, "Oh, tell me that is not what I think it is".    I'll leave your imaginations to figure it out.



Like I said before-
"whatever"


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> *Most members will not be able to attend. What is the process for them voting on the motion under consideration at the special meeting?*
> 
> I have responded to this before and will give it to you again.  Once the meeting is called a proxy is sent to all owners explaing the intent of the meeting and the owners vote as in any election.  You then need a quorum like in any other election.  Those that can not attend can assign the proxy as they do in any other election.
> 
> Why not let the owners have a say?


The owners should be able to vote by mail OR assign a proxy.  Didn't the owners vote including Marriott as an owner?  If you saying that only private owners should have voted and not Marriott, then I would absolutely disagree.


----------



## Luckybee

Marriott should absolutely get a vote for any units they own. That isnt what happened in the most recent elections however. They voted on B shares, something they have never done before . Not only did they get a vote with the A shares(which are ownership shares) but also with the B shares. The "developer"(Marriott) allocated 1500 B shares to Marriott(thenselves). These shares are connected to the "common facilities not exclusively by A share members" Im not sure of the number of units Marriott purchased back in contemplation of the election but as an example: If they bought back 100 units. They would have 100 A share votes , but by voting the B shares(if that is held to be ac'd to the intent and spirit of the bylaws) they would have an additional 1500 votes.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> Marriott should absolutely get a vote for any units they own. That isnt what happened in the most recent elections however. They voted on B shares, something they have never done before . Not only did they get a vote with the A shares(which are ownership shares) but also with the B shares. The "developer"(Marriott) allocated 1500 B shares to Marriott(thenselves). These shares are connected to the "common facilities not exclusively by A share members" Im not sure of the number of units Marriott purchased back in contemplation of the election but as an example: If they bought back 100 units. They would have 100 A share votes , but by voting the B shares(if that is held to be ac'd to the intent and spirit of the bylaws) they would have an additional 1500 votes.



But, just because they may not have ever voted those shares before doesn't mean automatically that they do not reserve the right to vote them at any time they choose!  Is there something written into the contracts somewhere that expressly prohibits them from doing so?   Or, what specifically are you reading in the by-laws that tells you the "intent and spirit" of their ownership of those 1,500 B shares was violated, and/or that the "violation" is not contractually enforceable?


----------



## lovearuba

*What are they afraid of*



Luckybee said:


> Marriott should absolutely get a vote for any units they own. That isnt what happened in the most recent elections however. They voted on B shares, something they have never done before . Not only did they get a vote with the A shares(which are ownership shares) but also with the B shares. The "developer"(Marriott) allocated 1500 B shares to Marriott(thenselves). These shares are connected to the "common facilities not exclusively by A share members" Im not sure of the number of units Marriott purchased back in contemplation of the election but as an example: If they bought back 100 units. They would have 100 A share votes , but by voting the B shares(if that is held to be ac'd to the intent and spirit of the bylaws) they would have an additional 1500 votes.


 
They set a precedent which to me says that they are afraid of what would happen if they didnt.  Just one more barrier that we will have to move out of our way to get transparency.  It is just a delay in getting what we need.


----------



## timeos2

*Time to put up or shut up. Complaints have all been aired a few times*



SueDonJ said:


> But, just because they may not have ever voted those shares before doesn't mean automatically that they do not reserve the right to vote them at any time they choose!  Is there something written into the contracts somewhere that expressly prohibits them from doing so?   Or, what specifically are you reading in the by-laws that tells you the "intent and spirit" of their ownership of those 1,500 B shares was violated, and/or that the "violation" is not contractually enforceable?



You have to admire the tenacity that finds "problems" with everything the other side does but cannot see the true problems with their own botched attempts. If it isn't legal for Marriott to vote those shares then challenge it! If it is legal then there is no problem.  If the so called list of 1000 wasn't properly documented then it isn't a legal request for a meeting. Do it right and you'll have your meeting. 

It is really SO simple when the emotions are stripped away and only the laws/rules are correctly applied.  Of course the result may not be what one group or another desires so it's much easier to complain, throw around theories about collusion or worse and go back a decade or more to try to get reimbursed.  While none of that does anything but fan the fire it has made for great drama here. 

This thread has run it's course unless the splinter group actually does something according to the rules - unlikely as that will actually cost real money both for that group (meaningful legal advice is seldom free) and the owners who will have to defend against it.


----------



## Luckybee

lovearuba said:


> They set a precedent which to me says that they are afraid of what would happen if they didnt.  Just one more barrier that we will have to move out of our way to get transparency.  It is just a delay in getting what we need.



I tried to just give you a smiley for that answer...it wouldnt let me being too short of a message...so let me just say...


----------



## lovearuba

timeos2 said:


> You have to admire the tenacity that finds "problems" with everything the other side does but cannot see the true problems with their own botched attempts. If it isn't legal for Marriott to vote those shares then challenge it! If it is legal then there is no problem. If the so called list of 1000 wasn't properly documented then it isn't a legal request for a meeting. Do it right and you'll have your meeting.
> 
> It is really SO simple when the emotions are stripped away and only the laws/rules are correctly applied. Of course the result may not be what one group or another desires so it's much easier to complain, throw around theories about collusion or worse and go back a decade or more to try to get reimbursed. While none of that does anything but fan the fire it has made for great drama here.
> 
> This thread has run it's course unless the splinter group actually does something according to the rules - unlikely as that will actually cost real money both for that group (meaningful legal advice is seldom free) and the owners who will have to defend against it.


 
I would say that I agree with some of your input but recognize that some things have taken place that could not be anticipated.  If no one gives you the rules its hard to play by them.  If something happens that has never happened before its hard to anticipate it.  Call us a splinter group or anything else you may want to call us but I am pleased that you are recognizing that we continue to pursue this.  This thread has not run its course and wouldn't you really like to know how this story ends.


----------



## Luckybee

timeos2 said:


> This thread has run it's course unless the splinter group actually does something according to the rules - unlikely as that will actually cost real money both for that group (meaningful legal advice is seldom free) and the owners who will have to defend against it.



"You have to admire the tenacity " of continuing to refer to the owners as "a splinter group" or "the minority" etc. when that simply isnt the case. They certainly were not the "minority" of owners who voted at the last meeting...rather they were the majority. The vote count of owners(including Marriott ownership) would have led to the ouster of Frank Knox. Only because of B shares(which have nothing whatsoever to do with ownership interest) was the board allowed to stay in place...only later will we know whether it is the "minority", a "splinter group", or the majority....and as to the "unlikely"...I guess only time will tell


----------



## modoaruba

Just an observation that I am getting from all of this.
I may be wrong. But just to shed a new light.

Take a company like Marriott.
Build a hotel and sell it as timeshares.
They are guaranteed close to a 100% occupancy at all times wether the owners are physically there or not.
Let the owners pay most of the expenses while they retain a significant portion for themselves with enough leverage that they will never lose control.
It now sounds to me that the term "owners" is no different than using the term "associate" at Walmart.
How much does the associate own?


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> I would say that I agree with some of your input but recognize that some things have taken place that could not be anticipated.  If no one gives you the rules its hard to play by them.  If something happens that has never happened before its hard to anticipate it.  Call us a splinter group or anything else you may want to call us but I am pleased that you are recognizing that we continue to pursue this.



I do admire that you're continuing to pursue it - as I've said, I would hate to be in your position of not loving my resort and feeling like I never could again.  BUT, I still don't understand why, if it means that much to you that you'll continue against what seem to be insurmountable odds, you haven't done the one thing that would ensure all of your actions are correct.  That's mind-boggling to me!

You've needed a qualified legal representative since Day One.  S/he is the one who would go and GET the rules, because certainly your adversary is not going to give them to you.  S/he would be the only one working for you who is educated enough to review the ownership documents, review the management contracts, review the state/country laws, review everything under the sun!, determine a course of action, draft and file your submissions, respond to your adversary's actions, recognize and plan for what could be your adversary's next moves, and (most importantly) protect YOUR interests at all cost.



lovearuba said:


> This thread has not run its course and wouldn't you really like to know how this story ends.



Yep, I would, and I'm staying 'til the end.  It's fascinating.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> "You have to admire the tenacity " of continuing to refer to the owners as "a splinter group" or "the minority" etc. when that simply isnt the case. They certainly were not the "minority" of owners who voted at the last meeting...rather they were the majority. The vote count of owners(including Marriott ownership) would have led to the ouster of Frank Knox. Only because of B shares(which have nothing whatsoever to do with ownership interest) was the board allowed to stay in place...only later will we know whether it is the "minority", a "splinter group", or the majority....and as to the "unlikely"...I guess only time will tell



The owners who voted that day did not represent a majority of the entire ownership of Aruba Ocean Club.  The fact that the minority number of owners who did vote chose to not reelect Frank Knox means NOTHING, insofar as obtaining a majority rule, because the management company's votes gave Frank Knox the majority he needed to be reelected.

A majority of the ownership of Aruba Ocean Club has remained silent (with their mouths and their votes) throughout this situation.  That makes the folks who have not remained silent, the folks who have voiced their disagreement, a minority ownership group.  By definition, that is a "splinter group."


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> They set a precedent which to me says that they are afraid of what would happen if they didnt.  Just one more barrier that we will have to move out of our way to get transparency.  It is just a delay in getting what we need.



I don't think I'd say that they were "afraid" of what would happen.  Rather, I'd say that they KNEW exactly what would happen and planned accordingly as best they could so that their interests would be as protected as possible.

I think they wanted Frank Knox to be reelected because he was the sitting President of the BOD that took actions to update/maintain their resort to the quality standard they want, and they didn't want any of those actions jeopardized.  They left nothing to chance, which is exactly what should have been expected of them.


----------



## Luckybee

SueDonJ said:


> I think they wanted Frank Knox to be reelected because he was the sitting President of the BOD that took actions to update/maintain their resort to the quality standard they want, and they didn't want any of those actions jeopardized.  They left nothing to chance, which is exactly what should have been expected of them.



The owners have been accused of bias, wild accusations etc. by some of the non owners on this website. IMHO when I read what you suggest is the motivation for the actions, seems far more to be far more wild supposition than anything suggested by any owner. Honestly if you believe that Marriott's motives were this pure....let me ask you one question....do you also believe in the easter bunny ?


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> The owners have been accused of bias, wild accusations etc. by some of the non owners on this website. IMHO when I read what you suggest is the motivation for the actions, seems far more to be far more wild supposition than anything suggested by any owner. Honestly if you believe that Marriott's motives were this pure....let me ask you one question....do you also believe in the easter bunny ?



This is too "silly" for me to answer.

[Edit:]  It's stupid to waste time trying to figure out if any of the motives for any of the actions taken by any of the folks involved here (meaning Marriott et al AND the owners) are "pure."  Purity has no place in the dispute over timeshare contractual obligations and limitations.  What you want to be concerned with, what you should be searching for validation of, is *what makes sense* under the circumstances and according to the laws.  All the crap that's been written here about a lack of transparency and Marriott not being good guys and the majority owners not knowing what is going on and the supposed lawyers working on a contingency basis and Allan not being the mastermind and Mark not being Allan's proxy MAKES NO DAMN SENSE.

At least I can say that what I write isn't totally preposterous.

And yes, at my home if you don't acknowledge the spirit of the Easter Bunny, you don't get a basket.


----------



## lovearuba

*easter baskets*



SueDonJ said:


> This is too "silly" for me to answer.
> 
> [Edit:] It's stupid to waste time trying to figure out if any of the motives for any of the actions taken by any of the folks involved here (meaning Marriott et al AND the owners) are "pure." Purity has no place in the dispute over timeshare contractual obligations and limitations. What you want to be concerned with, what you should be searching for validation of, is *what makes sense* under the circumstances and according to the laws. All the crap that's been written here about a lack of transparency and Marriott not being good guys and the majority owners not knowing what is going on and the supposed lawyers working on a contingency basis and Allan not being the mastermind and Mark not being Allan's proxy MAKES NO DAMN SENSE.
> 
> At least I can say that what I write isn't totally preposterous.
> 
> And yes, at my home if you don't acknowledge the spirit of the Easter Bunny, you don't get a basket.


 
I always get my girls easter baskets and I know they dont acknowledge the spirit of the Easter Bunny but they do acknowledge that I think about them on this special day and want them to know it.  I am offended when folks like you refer to this as crap. Whether or not you believe in this cause does not allow you to disrespect other people's beliefs.  You should continue to post your opinion but because something does not make sense to you does not mean you are right.  It means you have a different opinion and if you want it to be respected you need to respect others.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> ... It means you have a different opinion and if you want it to be respected you need to respect others.



Just one question - do you intend to admonish all of the folks here who have been less than respectful?

Truthfully, I'm not here looking for respect.  If I was, I would have given up the ghost a long time ago because my post above is certainly not the first in this thread that wasn't respectful.  I've said umpteen million times that I'm here because the topic interests me as an MVCI owner, and because there isn't any rule that says I can't be.  I will share my opinions as easily as other share theirs, respond to comments directed to me in the same manner in which they are written, continue to ask questions when I don't know the answer - all of the usual things that make up a discussion on a message board.  The individual readers can decide for themselves whether or not to consider or dismiss my posts.

Certainly none of us needs an individual lesson in etiquette.


----------



## Dave M

*In my capacity as a BBS Moderator:*

This thread has gotten out of hand again. If you wish to take potshots at another poster, please do it in your mind and not in print here. Post respectfully or not at all. Those who do not follow the "Be Courteous" Posting Rule risk suspension of posting privileges and will have posts deleted without warning.

Those who make any comments in print about this warning will also have their posts deleted for failing to heed the prohibition regarding discussion of  moderating.


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> The owners who voted that day did not represent a majority of the entire ownership of Aruba Ocean Club.  The fact that the minority number of owners who did vote chose to not reelect Frank Knox means NOTHING, insofar as obtaining a majority rule, because the management company's votes gave Frank Knox the majority he needed to be reelected.
> 
> A majority of the ownership of Aruba Ocean Club has remained silent (with their mouths and their votes) throughout this situation.  That makes the folks who have not remained silent, the folks who have voiced their disagreement, a minority ownership group.  By definition, that is a "splinter group."



Trying to bring this dialog back to a factual based discussion in the spirit of Dave's post, you have to recognize this is true. On this forum we crunched the numbers, and even if you doubled the votes, it still represents a minority of the eligible voters. So continuing to maintain that this crusade represents the will of owners is not consistent with the facts at hand. Sue is right in that regard.

And the problem with this whole thread is that the facts only come from one side of argument. Mark posts the facts as he sees them, e-mails received from other owners, Allan's regurgatations, and beyond that we have no facts from anyone else.

We still do not have a full accounting for how the votes were cast in the last election. Where those the mysterious "B" votes or proxies received from owners? Who knows?


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> Trying to bring this dialog back to a factual based discussion in the spirit of Dave's post, you have to recognize this is true. On this forum we crunched the numbers, and even if you doubled the votes, it still represents a minority of the eligible voters. So continuing to maintain that this crusade represents the will of owners is not consistent with the facts at hand. Sue is right in that regard.
> 
> And the problem with this whole thread is that the facts only come from one side of argument. Mark posts the facts as he sees them, e-mails received from other owners, Allan's regurgatations, and beyond that we have no facts from anyone else.
> 
> We still do not have a full accounting for how the votes were cast in the last election. Where those the mysterious "B" votes or proxies received from owners? Who knows?




The reason we only have the voting statistics from owners who were in attendance is because Marriott refuses to release the statistics themselves. But as was gathered the voting appears to break down as follows. It seems that there were : 4768 total owner votes or "A" share votes. This includes units that Marriott owns which were apparently 115, for a total of 230 votes.  Candidates- Lifieri had 3116, Bury 1034, Knox 612, and Otoole 6. Marriott adds in their "B" share votes of 1500 which then increases Knox to 2112.  The B share votes have nothing to do with proxies. Any proxy votes for any of the candiates are in the numbers of the owner votes.


----------



## modoaruba

Luckybee said:


> The reason we only have the voting statistics from owners who were in attendance is because Marriott refuses to release the statistics themselves. But as was gathered the voting appears to break down as follows. It seems that there were : 4768 total owner votes or "A" share votes. This includes units that Marriott owns which were apparently 115, for a total of 230 votes.  Candidates- Lifieri had 3116, Bury 1034, Knox 612, and Otoole 6. Marriott adds in their "B" share votes of 1500 which then increases Knox to 2112.  The B share votes have nothing to do with proxies. Any proxy votes for any of the candiates are in the numbers of the owner votes.



Another Iranian election.
The numbers don't make sense.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> The reason we only have the voting statistics from owners who were in attendance is because Marriott refuses to release the statistics themselves. But as was gathered the voting appears to break down as follows. It seems that there were : 4768 total owner votes or "A" share votes. This includes units that Marriott owns which were apparently 115, for a total of 230 votes.  Candidates- Lifieri had 3116, Bury 1034, Knox 612, and Otoole 6. Marriott adds in their "B" share votes of 1500 which then increases Knox to 2112.  The B share votes have nothing to do with proxies. Any proxy votes for any of the candiates are in the numbers of the owner votes.



So have we found where in the governing documents for the OC, it says that Marriott has 1500 votes. It should be clearly stated in the By-Laws or the Declaration.

And I am assuming that someone has directly e-mailed the BoD for the results, with either no response back or a response that says "we will not be releasing the results". This is not a Marriott issue, it is a BoD issue. Correct?


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> ... The numbers don't make sense.



How so?  They add up, and they match what Allan posted here and what Mark posted here.

I do have one question about the 230 A Share votes that Marriott exercised.

When we receive proxy forms, we are allowed only one vote on each matter.  In other words, we don't vote twice just because we own jointly.  It's stipulated in my paperwork for SurfWatch, that because we own jointly, we had to designate on a CERTIFICATE OF VOTING MEMBER form one of us as the person who would "... cast the vote for each Time Sharing Interest owned ... in all matters pertaining to the operation of the Association."  The form included three provisions - (one) that we were not required to designate a voting Member, (two) that if we did not, and were present at a meeting but could not concur on a decision, we would lose our right to vote on that subject, and (three) that if we did not, and only one of us was at a meeting, that one could cast the vote.

That's why I question how Marriott could vote twice for each of the 115 units that were bought back.  Is that correct as related, that they cast 230 A share votes for 115 units?  More importantly, does Aruba Ocean Club have the same owner/vote setup that my US resort, SurfWatch, utilizes?

Now it doesn't matter for the purposes of the election results as related by those at the meeting, because even if Marriott was only entitled to 115 A share votes, the votes for Frank Knox (382 owner/proxy votes + 115 Marriott owner votes + 1500 Marriott management votes = 1997) still would have exceeded those for "Candidate A" (1034).

But it is something that could be looked at further to possibly challenge.  The problem there would be, if each jointly-owned unit IS only designated one vote, that might open up the possibility that each jointly-owned unit is also only designated one "right" of any kind.  Would that impact how many owners are necessary to file a petition, such as the one that could be filed to force an initiation of an ownership-wide vote?  In other words, can you count a married couple as two persons toward the 10% of owners required for a petition?  I have no idea - it's just something to think about, another question for an attorney.

And, it might very well be a total waste of time thinking about it, if Marriott actually bought back 230 units or if Aruban law about timeshare ownership specifies that two votes (or an equal number of votes as owners) are designated to each unit sold.


----------



## lovearuba

*B votes*



ecwinch said:


> So have we found where in the governing documents for the OC, it says that Marriott has 1500 votes. It should be clearly stated in the By-Laws or the Declaration.
> 
> And I am assuming that someone has directly e-mailed the BoD for the results, with either no response back or a response that says "we will not be releasing the results". This is not a Marriott issue, it is a BoD issue. Correct?


 
It speaks to B votes but I cant find a number in the document.


----------



## m61376

This might have been answered before, but I still don't understand what are "B" votes.

Also- it doesn't make sense for each owner rather than each unit to get a vote, since some units are owned by a couple, some singly,and others by more than 2 family members. Each ownership should have a set number of votes ascribed to it, which may be 2, but then every other unit, regardless of the number of owners listed on the deed, should have the same number of votes.


----------



## modoaruba

I was thrown off by candidate A had 3116 votes.

It basically comes down: to that any election that might have candidates or issues that are questionable in the eyes of Marriott that might change the balance of power;there has already been established a failsafe for Marriott to control no matter what.
We are basically servents to Marriott by being the ones paying their way with our MFs at their discretion in the guise of being owners.(associates).
The BOD seems to be selected by Marriott as the final say.
In the end it's their resort and we pay for the upkeep.

Just running at the mouth, it's Saturday.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> ... It basically comes down: to that any election that might have candidates or issues that are questionable in the eyes of Marriott that might change the balance of power;there has already been established a failsafe for Marriott to control no matter what.



Except that Marriott's vote shares are limited to however many number of units they are holding as owners, and the 1,500 (I'm assuming that's a fixed number) management share votes.  If enough owners were to participate in an election whereby Marriott's total votes alone, or in combination with owner votes, could not exceed the majority owners', then Marriott isn't guaranteed control.



modoaruba said:


> We are basically servents to Marriott by being the ones paying their way with our MFs at their discretion in the guise of being owners.(associates).
> The BOD seems to be selected by Marriott as the final say.
> In the end it's their resort and we pay for the upkeep.



That's one way of looking at it.  I like to say they are OUR resorts - yours, mine, the other owners', and Marriott's.   



modoaruba said:


> Just running at the mouth, it's Saturday.



And it's a humid grey Saturday, at that.


----------



## SueDonJ

m61376 said:


> This might have been answered before, but I still don't understand what are "B" votes.
> 
> Also- it doesn't make sense for each owner rather than each unit to get a vote, since some units are owned by a couple, some singly,and others by more than 2 family members. Each ownership should have a set number of votes ascribed to it, which may be 2, but then every other unit, regardless of the number of owners listed on the deed, should have the same number of votes.



Two-thousand four hundred sixty-three words less, but that's what I meant.     I would really like to know the answer.


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> How so?  They add up, and they match what Allan posted here and what Mark posted here.
> 
> I do have one question about the 230 A Share votes that Marriott exercised.
> 
> When we receive proxy forms, we are allowed only one vote on each matter.  In other words, we don't vote twice just because we own jointly.  It's stipulated in my paperwork for SurfWatch, that because we own jointly, we had to designate on a CERTIFICATE OF VOTING MEMBER form one of us as the person who would "... cast the vote for each Time Sharing Interest owned ... in all matters pertaining to the operation of the Association."  The form included three provisions - (one) that we were not required to designate a voting Member, (two) that if we did not, and were present at a meeting but could not concur on a decision, we would lose our right to vote on that subject, and (three) that if we did not, and only one of us was at a meeting, that one could cast the vote.
> 
> That's why I question how Marriott could vote twice for each of the 115 units that were bought back.  Is that correct as related, that they cast 230 A share votes for 115 units?  More importantly, does Aruba Ocean Club have the same owner/vote setup that my US resort, SurfWatch, utilizes?
> 
> Now it doesn't matter for the purposes of the election results as related by those at the meeting, because even if Marriott was only entitled to 115 A share votes, the votes for Frank Knox (382 owner/proxy votes + 115 Marriott owner votes + 1500 Marriott management votes = 1997) still would have exceeded those for "Candidate A" (1034).
> 
> But it is something that could be looked at further to possibly challenge.  The problem there would be, if each jointly-owned unit IS only designated one vote, that might open up the possibility that each jointly-owned unit is also only designated one "right" of any kind.  Would that impact how many owners are necessary to file a petition, such as the one that could be filed to force an initiation of an ownership-wide vote?  In other words, can you count a married couple as two persons toward the 10% of owners required for a petition?  I have no idea - it's just something to think about, another question for an attorney.
> 
> And, it might very well be a total waste of time thinking about it, if Marriott actually bought back 230 units or if Aruban law about timeshare ownership specifies that two votes (or an equal number of votes as owners) are designated to each unit sold.



It is called cumulative voting. You get one vote for each open seat on the BoD. So with two positions open, you get two votes. You can either split the vote between two candidates, or cast them all for one candidate.

So for their 115 units, they got 230 votes.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> It speaks to B votes but I cant find a number in the document.



What does it say in regard to the B votes then.


----------



## ecwinch

I forgot to mention this earlier. 

But being pro-Marriott has really paid off so far. They really do live up to the their promises for those of us that are helping combat the OC renegades. 

I am currently at the Marriott Streamside. I think I have the best unit in whole place. In the Evergreen building, overlooking the stream, and 50' from the hot tub. 

It is good to be pro-Marriott. Plus I have picked up about six more pens. Just a couple of more stays, and I will have enough for the kids for school next year.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Except that Marriott's vote shares are limited to however many number of units they are holding as owners, and the 1,500 (I'm assuming that's a fixed number) management share votes.  If enough owners were to participate in an election whereby Marriott's total votes alone, or in combination with owner votes, could not exceed the majority owners', then Marriott isn't guaranteed control.
> 
> 
> 
> As stated before,the true majority never votes.
> Thats why it can't change.
> 
> 
> 
> And it's a humid grey Saturday, at that.



Yes it is. But you get up in the morning,look out the window and there is weather-I say you're ahead of the game


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> I forgot to mention this earlier.
> 
> But being pro-Marriott has really paid off so far. They really do live up to the their promises for those of us that are helping combat the OC renegades.
> 
> I am currently at the Marriott Streamside. I think I have the best unit in whole place. In the Evergreen building, overlooking the stream, and 50' from the hot tub.
> 
> It is good to be pro-Marriott. Plus I have picked up about six more pens. Just a couple of more stays, and I will have enough for the kids for school next year.



Just dropped your name at the Courtyard in Newark.
Got a room overlooking the prison. The elevator on one side of me and the ice machine on the other. NO PENS! No batteries in the remote. Thanks.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Just dropped your name at the Courtyard in Newark.
> Got a room overlooking the prison. The elevator on one side of me and the ice machine on the other. NO PENS! No batteries in the remote. Thanks.



Silly wrabbit, You cannot fool the mighty Marriott. They know who the OC rebels are. Probably have a photo lineup of all of them....

And you probably gave yourself away by not giving the "I luv Marriott" secret handshake....


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> I forgot to mention this earlier.
> 
> But being pro-Marriott has really paid off so far. They really do live up to the their promises for those of us that are helping combat the OC renegades.
> 
> I am currently at the Marriott Streamside. I think I have the best unit in whole place. In the Evergreen building, overlooking the stream, and 50' from the hot tub.
> 
> It is good to be pro-Marriott. Plus I have picked up about six more pens. Just a couple of more stays, and I will have enough for the kids for school next year.



I wondered, when my latest trip ended two weeks ago, how we ended up with the best units we could have gotten for two weeks in a row at two different resorts.  At Barony we had the top-floor left-corner oceanfront, and at SurfWatch we had the top-floor right-corner oceanside.  Fantastic!

I don't know if it's because of this thread, though.  It's probably because we don't take the pens.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> It is called cumulative voting. You get one vote for each open seat on the BoD. So with two positions open, you get two votes. You can either split the vote between two candidates, or cast them all for one candidate.
> 
> So for their 115 units, they got 230 votes.



DOH!  So it was a total waste of time thinking about it, but for a different reason.  Figures.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> ... being pro-Marriott has really paid off so far. ...I am currently at the Marriott Streamside. I think I have the best unit in whole place. ...





modoaruba said:


> Just dropped your name at the Courtyard in Newark.
> Got a room overlooking the prison. The elevator on one side of me and the ice machine on the other. NO PENS! No batteries in the remote. Thanks.





ecwinch said:


> Silly wrabbit, You cannot fool the mighty Marriott. They know who the OC rebels are. Probably have a photo lineup of all of them....
> 
> And you probably gave yourself away by not giving the "I luv Marriott" secret handshake....



:hysterical:   Love the "NO PENS!"


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> I wondered, when my latest trip ended two weeks ago, how we ended up with the best units we could have gotten for two weeks in a row at two different resorts.  At Barony we had the top-floor left-corner oceanfront, and at SurfWatch we had the top-floor right-corner oceanside.  Fantastic!
> 
> I don't know if it's because of this thread, though.  It's probably because we don't take the pens.



It's the thread. I always take the pens....

I bet if you call MVCI and ask, they will tell you that you have a big smiley face on your account....  and FOB status (Friends of Bill).


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> Silly wrabbit, You cannot fool the mighty Marriott. They know who the OC rebels are. Probably have a photo lineup of all of them....
> 
> And you probably gave yourself away by not giving the "I luv Marriott" secret handshake....



Who you calling a rebel?
Know what happened last time when someone said "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"?
(Rebels know secrets.shhh)


----------



## Dean

Luckybee said:


> Marriott should absolutely get a vote for any units they own. That isnt what happened in the most recent elections however. They voted on B shares, something they have never done before . Not only did they get a vote with the A shares(which are ownership shares) but also with the B shares. The "developer"(Marriott) allocated 1500 B shares to Marriott(thenselves). These shares are connected to the "common facilities not exclusively by A share members" Im not sure of the number of units Marriott purchased back in contemplation of the election but as an example: If they bought back 100 units. They would have 100 A share votes , but by voting the B shares(if that is held to be ac'd to the intent and spirit of the bylaws) they would have an additional 1500 votes.


Whether they've voted them previously means nothing.  All that matters is whether they have the right to vote the B shares.  It seems that those with the documents aren't sure.


----------



## Luckybee

lovearuba said:


> It speaks to B votes but I cant find a number in the document.



4.1 through 4.6 covers this...if you dont have it send me a pm and I'll email it to you


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> It is called cumulative voting. You get one vote for each open seat on the BoD. So with two positions open, you get two votes. You can either split the vote between two candidates, or cast them all for one candidate.
> 
> So for their 115 units, they got 230 votes.



Nope....each every year membership interest holds 2 "A" shares while each every other year interest holds 1 "A" share


----------



## lovearuba

*B votes*



Luckybee said:


> 4.1 through 4.6 covers this...if you dont have it send me a pm and I'll email it to you


 
thanks, I found it.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> Nope....each every year membership interest holds 2 "A" shares while each every other year interest holds 1 "A" share



Hmmmmm.  So does that mean you get two proxy ballots for your EY unit, for every voting matter before the BOD?  Is there a similar form in your ownership papers to designate one of you as the Voting Member for the ownership interest, for purposes of those ballots?


----------



## dioxide45

SueDonJ said:


> Hmmmmm.  So does that mean you get two proxy ballots for your EY unit, for every voting matter before the BOD?  Is there a similar form in your ownership papers to designate one of you as the Voting Member for the ownership interest, for purposes of those ballots?



You wouldn't get two ballots but rather your one vote would be given two in the final tally. So if there are 6 people voting, 4 with EY, and 2 EOY. Say 3 EY people vote for candiate A (Candidate A has 6 votes), the other one EY and two EOY people vote for candidate B (dandidate B now has 4 votes). Even though they had the same number of people vote for each (three), candidate A wins.


----------



## Luckybee

SueDonJ said:


> Hmmmmm.  So does that mean you get two proxy ballots for your EY unit, for every voting matter before the BOD?  Is there a similar form in your ownership papers to designate one of you as the Voting Member for the ownership interest, for purposes of those ballots?



Dioxide answered the first question. If the A shares are owned by more than 1 "entity " then there must be a designation filed(or no vote by 1), unless the 2 shareholders are husband and wife in which case one can bind the other unless there is a specific non agreement. For example if both H and W show up at a meeting and they disagree, and no designation filed, then they lose that vote.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> Dioxide answered the first question. If the A shares are owned by more than 1 "entity " then there must be a designation filed(or no vote by 1), unless the 2 shareholders are husband and wife in which case one can bind the other unless there is a specific non agreement. For example if both H and W show up at a meeting and they disagree, and no designation filed, then they lose that vote.



Yes, that sounds similar to the same stipulations to which we signed.  That's why I thought about whether or not a husband and wife would count as two signatures on a petition to the BOD, or is each unit somehow designated only one "petitioning member?"  I have no idea if such a thing exists or where it would be found in the paperwork; it's just a continuation of the thought.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Nope....each every year membership interest holds 2 "A" shares while each every other year interest holds 1 "A" share



Ok. Not having access to the by-laws, it sounded like cumulative voting like I described.

So what is the story on the B votes?


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> Ok. Not having access to the by-laws, it sounded like cumulative voting like I described.
> 
> So what is the story on the B votes?



What are you asking?


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> What are you asking?



I can't speak for Eric, but I'll repeat my questions about the objections to Marriott voting the B shares during that election:

Is there something written into the contracts somewhere that expressly prohibits them from doing so?

Or, what specifically are you reading in the by-laws that tells you the "intent and spirit" of their ownership of those 1,500 B shares was violated, and/or that the "violation" is not contractually enforceable?


----------



## Luckybee

Sue...I am prepared to answer non contentious things about the bylaws...but Im not about to get into a debate about them which is without doubt what would happen if I answered that question...let's just say that I think someone else will answer that question in a different "forum" at a later date


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> What are you asking?



In a perfect world, I would want to see all provisions that apply to the B shares. 

As we live in a less than perfect world, what specific wording in 4.1 - 4.6 applies to the B shares. I am assuming there must be a formula in their outlining how many they receive, and what the basis for the shares are, and any limitations.

The whole concept that someone who does not pay m/f, has a vote in the HOA elections is foreign to me. Just trying to understand it.


----------



## lovearuba

*Is it that difficult?*



ecwinch said:


> In a perfect world, I would want to see all provisions that apply to the B shares.
> 
> As we live in a less than perfect world, what specific wording in 4.1 - 4.6 applies to the B shares. I am assuming there must be a formula in their outlining how many they receive, and what the basis for the shares are, and any limitations.
> 
> The whole concept that someone who does not pay m/f, has a vote in the HOA elections is foreign to me. Just trying to understand it.


 
I would think that the language in Marriott documents are very similar.  You own a Marriott?  Do your governing documents have a section on voting?  If so they probably refer to B shares.  I know they would not be exact but they are probably similar.  As for the B shares being used with payment of M/f, I don't think that is the case.  I recall reading something about some fees related to the B shares.  I can look tonight.


----------



## modoaruba

And if you hold the bylaws under a candle after spraying it with Marriott's secret spray(which is available for 3M Marriott points) you will see the paragraph talking about the double secret C shares.
It's a bummer. They can never be outvoted.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> And if you hold the bylaws under a candle after spraying it with Marriott's secret spray(which is available for 3M Marriott points) you will see the paragraph talking about the double secret C shares.
> It's a bummer. They can never be outvoted.



Good one.....


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> I would think that the language in Marriott documents are very similar.  You own a Marriott?  Do your governing documents have a section on voting?  If so they probably refer to B shares.  I know they would not be exact but they are probably similar.  As for the B shares being used with payment of M/f, I don't think that is the case.  I recall reading something about some fees related to the B shares.  I can look tonight.



I bought resale, so I do not a copy of the by-laws. Also, I would not presume they follow the same form used in the US. They would have to conform to applicable Dutch law.

But it merits investigation. Does anyone have a copy of any MVCI resort by-laws in electronic format that they can send me? Pretty please....


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> Does anyone have a copy of *any* MVCI resort by-laws in electronic format that they can send me?



An owner (TUG member Davidvel) posted a link to Shadow Ridge documents in another thread here, not sure if you'll find anything but it's the only electronic source I know of ...


----------



## SueDonJ

SueDonJ said:


> An owner (TUG member Davidvel) posted a link to Shadow Ridge documents in another thread here, not sure if you'll find anything but it's the only electronic source I know of ...



from page 15 of the Master Declaration in that link:

"3.3 VOTING.

(a) Number of Votes.  The Master Association shall have two classes of voting membership:

Class A.  Class A Members shall be all Owners except Declarant and shall be entitled to the voting power equal, for each Lot owned, to the Allocation attributable to such Lot. ...

Class B.  The Class B Member shall be the Declarant who shall be entitled to voting power equal to three times the Allocation attributable to each Lot owned. ..."

That's enough to get started; obviously the contained definition of "Allocation" is the next step, and then on to units owned, etc.  But this is enough to verify, I think, that there are such things as B Shares and corresponding votes.  The specifics of their entitlement as it pertains to Aruba Ocean Club and that particular election can only be found, though, in the corresponding Master Declaration.

[Edit:]  About three-quarters of the way down that PDF file of the Master Declaration, "Exhibit E" is "STANDARDS FOR CALCULATING THE ALLOCATION."  Good luck!


----------



## qlaval

A few weeks ago I did sent a letter to Arne Sorenson complaining and requesting some explanations about how Marriott justified the use of their B votes. 

I've just received today a nice & very polite letter from Dirk Schavemaker.(Thank you)
I will share the part that relate to the B shares.

_In accordance with the Aruba Ocean Club Association Bylaws, MVCI is allocated 1,500 votes per open director position as the owner of the B Shares associated with the commercial spaces at Aruba Ocean Club. In addition, at the time of the Annual Meeting, MVCI was entitled to an additional 230 votes per open director position in respect of Aruba Ocean Club weeks owned by MVCI. Other examples of MVCI exercising its voting rights at Aruba Ocean Club include the 2003 Annual Meeting. While MVCI has not always exercised its voting rights at Aruba Ocean Club or its other timeshare resorts, it reserves the right to do so in its discretion. At the recent Annual Meeting, MVCI cast its votes in favor of Mr. Frank Knox and Mr. Anthony Lifrieri.

At the time of the Annual Meeting there were approximately 24,000 votes per open director position eligible to be cast (for a total of approximately 48,000 total votes since there were two open director positions). Approximately 13,000 total votes were cast in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting.  Just under 7,000 votes were cast by owners other than MVCI prior to the Annual Meeting, and the tally of these votes gave Mr. Frank Knox the lead going into the Annual Meeting. These votes, together with votes cast at the meeting, resulted in Mr. Knox’s election. With respect to the second open Board position, Mr. Anthony Lifrieri received a substantial number of votes from owners other than MVCI prior to the Annual Meeting and received the most number of votes from owners other than MVCI at the Annual Meeting.  These votes resulted in Mr. Lifrieri’s election.

The official results of the election will be reflected in the minutes for the Annual Meeting.  The minutes will be available to all Aruba Ocean Club owners upon finalization and approval by the Board.
_


----------



## Sunbum

It appears we all got the same form letter.....again.


----------



## ecwinch

Sunbum said:


> It appears we all got the same form letter.....again.



Yeah, Dirk should be writing personalized letters targeted to each owner.


----------



## lovearuba

*peronalized letters*



ecwinch said:


> Yeah, Dirk should be writing personalized letters targeted to each owner.


 
The letters are form letters.  I got one and he neglected to answer one of my concerns, it sounds like he didnt read it.  I responded back reminding him since my concern is not on this thread anywhere and I did not want to share it with anyone here.  I responded to the letter reminding him that he missed one of the areas I requested he respond to.  I am not expecting an answer but I can still ask.


----------



## ecwinch

So the net on the mystery of the "B" votes, is that Marriott retains ownership of certain common areas (like the Champions sports bar, etc.). So the "B" votes are based on ownership of those areas, and not that they lease them (as was originally reported and did not make sense).

Does anyone else read this differently?


----------



## ecwinch

Here also are some general observations on why the Shadow Ridge documents may not follow the OC:

First, you have US vs Aruba law.

So the second general assumption (and potentially flawed) is that the OC is following the form of the Shadow Ridge. Since Shadow Ridge has a golf course that is tied to the property and is a major part of the resort, they hold significant control over the Master Association of Shadow Ridge. This would not be the same at the OC, due to the absence of the golf course. 

Second, Shadow Ridge is a mixed used resort, with a combination of timeshare and condo units. It is governed by a Master Association, of which there is a Condo Association and the Declarant. The Timeshare Association is most likely part of the Condo Association, based on a certain number of Condo units being devoted to the Timeshare program. Is this same for the OC? 

What I cannot open is the Timeshare Declaration. Can anyone else open this document?

Does that document contain the By-Laws?  That is the key document in BoD elections. Declarations represent the legal document defining the resort development. They outline the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of the respective parties (Developer/Declarant, HOA, and owner). The by-laws are subordinate to the Declaration for legal purposes. The By-Laws define how the HOA is governed. That is the key document here, and the one we would need to understand.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> ... What I cannot open is the Timeshare Declaration. Can anyone else open this document?



Try this direct link to the open PDF.



ecwinch said:


> Does that document contain the By-Laws?  That is the key document in BoD elections. Declarations represent the legal document defining the resort development. They outline the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of the respective parties (Developer/Declarant, HOA, and owner). The by-laws are subordinate to the Declaration for legal purposes. The By-Laws define how the HOA is governed. That is the key document here, and the one we would need to understand.



I don't think it includes the By-Laws.  But it wouldn't matter anyway, because as you've pointed out, what applies to one resort cannot be generally applied to another.

And doesn't all this just drive the point home, that it's necessary to have a qualified legal representative involved?


----------



## timeos2

*Why have a third party control your common areas? Because the developer wants it!*



ecwinch said:


> So the net on the mystery of the "B" votes, is that Marriott retains ownership of certain common areas (like the Champions sports bar, etc.). So the "B" votes are based on ownership of those areas, and not that they lease them (as was originally reported and did not make sense).
> 
> Does anyone else read this differently?



This type of arrangement - ownership of common areas by the developer - can occur if it was originally set up that way. It is not a plus for the owners as that means the rights to use those areas do not belong to them - they are not transferred - and thus Marriott holds absolute control over them and can rent them out, sell the rights, etc with no control from the owners Association. A big negative. At some resorts - Bluetree in Orlando comes to mind - a "hostile" takeover of those common areas has actually meant the Association was thrown out of the check in desk and had to build their own new building on the property. It was (and continues to be) a big mess and a great reason to avoid ownership at that resort. 

Naturally I prefer a true ownership of the resort by and for the individual owners. To me that should include all common areas. While there is most likely an easement or other usage right granted for some period of time to the developer to allow them to recover their investment through sales activities (which after all is why they build the place to begin with!)  there should be an end date spelled out or negotiated at which point ownership and control moves to the Association.  Once that happens they can collect rent or use the space for common good - but most importantly the Association has control. When the developer owns it there is an artificial and unnecessary permanent tie to a third party that hangs over the resort operation. As others have noted the potential income from those areas could help keep fees lower but, since the Association doesn't own or control it, instead any income (and to be fair potential losses)  goes only to the developer or whoever they assign the use rights to. Not good for the unit owners. 

The other problems it creates should be obvious as well. How do things like utility costs and cleaning get apportioned between the developer and the Association? Who pays for improvements and who approves them? How is it operated, what staff? It is a black hole and the answers can create riffs or worse for even  the best run organizations.  It is too bad that appears to be the setup that was put in place here. It is likely to be a thorn in the Associations side forever more.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Once Original Sales Are Complete, The Timeshare Company Should Bow Out.*




timeos2 said:


> How do things like utility costs and cleaning get apportioned between the developer and the Association?


Separate utility meters ?

Separate cleaning & maintenance contracts ?

I agree with the idea of the owners & not the timeshare company having complete control -- just 1 more reason I have such pride of ownership in my outstanding association-owned & owner-controlled Orlando timeshares. 

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


----------



## SueDonJ

I like shared control between the owners, the development company and the management company.  Specifically, I like what is offered at an MVCI property both as a purchaser and as a user.  By purchasing any of their properties you can expect a certain quality standard as well as inclusion into an exchange pool that offers similar-standards resorts.  In addition, when things go wrong (such as with the roof repairs at AOC that were not covered by warranty,) there is the possibility that Marriott as the parent company can step in with some financial relief.

The good thing is that there is enough general information out there so that each individual buyer can research how the big companies to the smallest resorts run their properties, which means that an educated buyer has the opportunity to recognize what s/he's buying before the purchase.  And, there is enough variety for all of us to find what we want.


----------



## timeos2

*Thr rights are absolute so its a problem*



SueDonJ said:


> I like shared control between the owners, the development company and the management company.  Specifically, I like what is offered at an MVCI property both as a purchaser and as a user.  By purchasing any of their properties you can expect a certain quality standard as well as inclusion into an exchange pool that offers similar-standards resorts.  In addition, when things go wrong (such as with the roof repairs at AOC that were not covered by warranty,) there is the possibility that Marriott as the parent company can step in with some financial relief.



But too many cooks can ruin the meal. There is nothing to say that everything you want can't be negotiated with the third party and in fact, since that group is usually the developer, it is. But having neither side have the final say leaves both in what can be a tough spot. One cannot control the other and may have mutually conflicting goals. The third party isn't likely to pay more than whatever THEY consider to be the fair share of any costs - and since there is no "club" to force them (they can be there no matter what as they OWN it!) the stage is set for exactly what we are witnessing. Threats, innuendo's, accusations of improprieties, self interest, etc etc.  It isn't a good situation for either side but really works against the individual owners rather than the group that has rights they otherwise wouldn't hold.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Isn't That What This Whole Fuss Is All About ?*




SueDonJ said:


> Marriott as the parent company can step in with some financial relief.


How's that working out for ya ? 

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


----------



## modoaruba

So are the new chandeliers going up in the Marriott owned common areas or in the owner's area since we are paying for them?


----------



## timeos2

*You pay but have no say. Why do developers do that?*



modoaruba said:


> So are the new chandeliers going up in the Marriott owned common areas or in the owner's area since we are paying for them?



See? Who pays for what? Improvements benefit who? Who has the final say? It is a nightmare scenario to have "two Chiefs" and no one have final say. Nothing like being on the hook for costs but no say in what they are (and I know that from experience at a resort. It's not a good spot to be in).


----------



## modoaruba

Not to sound redundant,but isn't this what I have been saying all along?
We pay the upkeep and at the end of the day Marriott retains ownership of a beautifully newly restored facility at our expense many times over.


----------



## SueDonJ

timeos2 said:


> But too many cooks can ruin the meal. There is nothing to say that everything you want can't be negotiated with the third party and in fact, since that group is usually the developer, it is. But having neither side have the final say leaves both in what can be a tough spot. One cannot control the other and may have mutually conflicting goals. The third party isn't likely to pay more than whatever THEY consider to be the fair share of any costs - and since there is no "club" to force them (they can be there no matter what as they OWN it!) the stage is set for exactly what we are witnessing. Threats, innuendo's, accusations of improprieties, self interest, etc etc.  It isn't a good situation for either side but really works against the individual owners rather than the group that has rights they otherwise wouldn't hold.



I'm not sure I understand how what's happening at Aruba Ocean Club is working against the majority ownership, though.  Sure, this group here is not getting what they want from Marriott/MVCI, but if I were an owner there I wouldn't want this minority group to be successful in their demands.  They are asking for things that do not appear to be supported by the contracts, and the contracts were what they stipulated to when they purchased.  I would guess that the majority of the ownership wants their resort to be maintained as exactly it was purchased - and that's an MVCI-standard resort.

It appears at Aruba Ocean Club that for years the m/f collections were insufficient to maintain the resort to that expected standard, and this dispute began because finally steps have been take to increase the coffers.  Yes, there are other issues that have been brought into the dispute since its inception, but do any of us think that it would have come this far if the m/f increases and special assessments had not been levied?  I don't think so.

But beyond Aruba Ocean Club, opening the discussion to which timeshare model is the best, it's a personal preference.  In an MVCI model it's understood that the majority owners do have a measure of control which will be balanced by the Management Company if the owners share the developer's goals, and which will be offset in the developer's favor if the owners disagree with Management Company actions.  I purchased the MVCI model specifically because I want my home resort to maintain the standard which was purchased, and I want the ability to exchange into resorts which fit that same standard.

What's right for me certainly isn't what's right for everyone, but each of us needs to understand exactly what we've purchased.


----------



## SueDonJ

timeos2 said:


> See? Who pays for what? Improvements benefit who? Who has the final say? It is a nightmare scenario to have "two Chiefs" and no one have final say. Nothing like being on the hook for costs but no say in what they are (and I know that from experience at a resort. It's not a good spot to be in).





modoaruba said:


> Not to sound redundant,but isn't this what I have been saying all along?
> We pay the upkeep and at the end of the day Marriott retains ownership of a beautifully newly restored facility at our expense many times over.



I guess that's what I expect of an MVCI property so I don't have a problem with owners paying for improvements, as long as the BOD takes the proper legal actions to support such things.  Without evidence of illegalities, it can be said that the BOD is working in the owners' best interests, which is what they are supposed to do.

And again, in this particular case, I'm just not seeing that the Aruba Ocean Club BOD or Marriott/MVCI has acted illegally.  The timing of the special assessment on top of the huge m/f increases is unfortunate, sure, but a review of the past m/f history supports the need for both.  Maybe the special assessment could have been held off for a year or two to lessen the sting on owners' pocketbooks, but in the end it would have to be paid anyway to maintain the property standard.


----------



## modoaruba

But it's gotten to the point where you can rent at the AOC cheaper than the MFs.
You can now enjoy a soon to be remodeled,refurbished,new roof an windows,etc. Marriott facility without the ownership and fees.
You don't have to buy the cow for the glass of milk.


----------



## modoaruba

Sue,
Incase you have never been there
why don't  you treat yourself to our resort.
I think I saw a week in November for $750.
Just thank us owners for the nice flat screens for your enjoyment.
(Frankly I would have spent the money on my personal flat screen for the other 51 weeks at home).


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> But it's gotten to the point where you can rent at the AOC cheaper than the MFs.
> You can now enjoy a soon to be remodeled,refurbished,new roof an windows,etc. Marriott facility without the ownership and fees.
> You don't have to buy the cow for the glass of milk.



I think the risk of someday being able to rent for less than ownership costs is a risk inherent in every timeshare unit.  The value in purchasing, to me, lies in being guaranteed that the type of unit you want to use will be available at some point during the season which you purchased.  Renting doesn't offer that guarantee.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> Sue,
> Incase you have never been there
> why don't  you treat yourself to our resort.
> I think I saw a week in November for $750.
> Just thank us owners for the nice flat screens for your enjoyment.
> (Frankly I would have spent the money on my personal flat screen for the other 51 weeks at home).



Actually, your resort may someday be on our exchange list, and I'd be disappointed to get there and find that it's not been maintained to the brand standard.  Is that really what you would want, for your resort to fall into disrepair because timely refurbishment is sacrificed for the dollar?


----------



## modoaruba

All 1BR and 2BR units are the same except for location.
Anytime we go to the AOC we are NOT guaranteed anything except for the type of unit.Owners end up fighting with the desk staff everytime for a desired unit. NO GUARANTEES!except a unit.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Actually, your resort may someday be on our exchange list, and I'd be disappointed to get there and find that it's not been maintained to the brand standard.  Is that really what you would want, for your resort to fall into disrepair because timely refurbishment is sacrificed for the dollar?



There is a difference between timely refurbishment at the expense of the owners and excessiveness.
When it comes to Marriott calling the shots as to how and how much with disregard to the owners who will be shelling most of the cost is outrageous.
A BOD that has the interest of the owners in mind can evaluate what has to be done at the most reasonable expense.
I for one go to Aruba to enjoy the outdoors and the people.
I do not turn on a TV. I am only speaking for myself.
Marriott can make the AOC look like the Ritz for all I care,it would be nice,but don't give me the bill.
If you were to go there now you would not be disappointed.It's very nice and has a nice curb appeal.
I just think that the owners are being used to make everything look nice at owner's expense for Marriott,thereby forcing many owners to sell or rent.
As long as these selling or renting owners still own,they still must pay.
And again,at the end of the day Marriott still has a beautiful resort.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> There is a difference between timely refurbishment at the expense of the owners and excessiveness.
> When it comes to Marriott calling the shots as to how and how much with disregard to the owners who will be shelling most of the cost is outrageous.
> A BOD that has the interest of the owners in mind can evaluate what has to be done at the most reasonable expense.
> I for one go to Aruba to enjoy the outdoors and the people.
> I do not turn on a TV. I am only speaking for myself.
> Marriott can make the AOC look like the Ritz for all I care,it would be nice,but don't give me the bill.
> If you were to go there now you would not be disappointed.It's very nice and has a nice curb appeal.
> I just think that the owners are being used to make everything look nice at owner's expense for Marriott,thereby forcing many owners to sell or rent.
> As long as these selling or renting owners still own,they still must pay.
> And again,at the end of the day Marriott still has a beautiful resort.



I think we want different things from our resorts.  It's not that one or the other of us is correct in what we want, but only that we have different expectations of what Marriott's/MVCI's obligations are.

For example, Barony Beach is a very nice resort, certainly it makes for a very nice vacation, but it's a bit outdated and not up to the brand standard of newer MVCI resorts.  I notice it especially when I compare it to the other resort we own, SurfWatch - the older TV's and non-granite countertops in the bathrooms really stand out.  But I was happy to see that while we were there a few weeks ago, they were bringing in the new flat-screen TV's.  I hope some of the older furniture pieces are next on the list.

I think a long time ago somewhere in the pages of this thread I mentioned that the latest GM's letter from Barony Beach made me think that a special assessment for refurbishment may be in the near future.  If it's necessary to fund the things outlined in that letter, then I'm okay with it.  (But I think their reserves and m/f's have accumulated at a greater rate than AOC's so it won't hit my pocketbook as hard as yours did.)

So, what's reasonable to you may not be what's reasonable to someone else.  And above all else, the "brand standard" requirement in the documents will trump any individual owners' opinions about what's necessary to maintain the resort.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> All 1BR and 2BR units are the same except for location.
> Anytime we go to the AOC we are NOT guaranteed anything except for the type of unit.Owners end up fighting with the desk staff everytime for a desired unit. NO GUARANTEES!except a unit.



I know every resort isn't the same, but Aruba Ocean Club doesn't have different seasons or view types?  I don't know of any resort that honors requests for a specific-numbered unit, but owners always get what they purchased with regard to #BR, view and season.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> I know every resort isn't the same, but Aruba Ocean Club doesn't have different seasons or view types?  I don't know of any resort that honors requests for a specific-numbered unit, but owners always get what they purchased with regard to #BR, view and season.



That's true. You are guaranteed a unit and view.
What I was comparing it to is that if you rented you get the same guarantee.


----------



## lovearuba

*Every resort is not the same*



SueDonJ said:


> I know every resort isn't the same, but Aruba Ocean Club doesn't have different seasons or view types? I don't know of any resort that honors requests for a specific-numbered unit, but owners always get what they purchased with regard to #BR, view and season.


 
what are your maintenance fees?


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> what are your maintenance fees?



Are you an owner there?  I can send you a copy of the bills if you are.



HAHAHAHAhahaha....sorry, I couldn't resist the opportunity.

At SurfWatch it's $1,108.78 for a 3BR unit and at Barony it's $910.00 for a 2BR unit.  But aren't these numbers meaningless to you without the context of geographical placement of the resorts, operating fees, historical data, reserve collections and anticipated needs, etc..?  Without all of that relevant information you can certainly come back at me and say, "See!  You have no idea what's going on at Aruba Ocean Club because you don't have the same bills we do!"  But with all of the information, you could come to the same realization that I have about your resort - that fees are dependent upon the resort's specifications and it is imperative for the BOD to set realistic annual fees if the resort is to be maintained to the brand standard.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Are you an owner there?  I can send you a copy of the bills if you are.
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAhahaha....sorry, I couldn't resist the opportunity.
> 
> At SurfWatch it's $1,108.78 for a 3BR unit and at Barony it's $910.00 for a 2BR unit.  But aren't these numbers meaningless to you without the context of geographical placement of the resorts, operating fees, historical data, reserve collections and anticipated needs, etc..?  Without all of that relevant information you can certainly come back at me and say, "See!  You have no idea what's going on at Aruba Ocean Club because you don't have the same bills we do!"  But with all of the information, you could come to the same realization that I have about your resort - that fees are dependent upon the resort's specifications and it is imperative for the BOD to set realistic annual fees if the resort is to be maintained to the brand standard.



You would be a great timeshare salesperson.
Sure you not a Marriott mole?
Let's say I am a potential buyer for the AOC.
Convince me to buy at today's current price through Marriott and convince me that the MFs are well worth it.
I'll let you know right off the bat that I am aware of rental options and buying options through other channels.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> You would be a great timeshare salesperson.
> Sure you not a Marriott mole?
> Let's say I am a potential buyer for the AOC.
> Convince me to buy at today's current price through Marriott and convince me that the MFs are well worth it.
> I'll let you know right off the bat that I am aware of rental options and buying options through other channels.



Hmmmm.  I think you may have just given me the ultimate insult.  A timeshare salesman?  Aren't they considered to be the lowest of the low weasels on this message board?  Hmmmmmph.  

And no, I'm not a Marriott mole, although I can play one on here if they offer me the right incentives...

But honestly, and seriously, I wouldn't ever try to convince anybody to buy a timeshare, not at any resort!  Even in the best economic circumstances it's a personal decision/lifestyle choice rather than a financial investment opportunity.  But especially in this economic climate, I think anybody is taking too great a risk by purchasing any "luxury" item no matter which way they purchase.  These days the best sale price isn't worth risking when the current climate dictates that we should all be doing our best to put any discretionary income into the most secure savings plans we can find.

So, I think that only the folks who have money to burn should be buying timeshares right now.  And those folks?  The timeshare model doesn't appear to be the way they vacation.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Hmmmm.  I think you may have just given me the ultimate insult.  A timeshare salesman?  Aren't they considered to be the lowest of the low weasels on this message board?  Hmmmmmph.
> 
> And no, I'm not a Marriott mole, although I can play one on here if they offer me the right incentives...
> 
> But honestly, and seriously, I wouldn't ever try to convince anybody to buy a timeshare, not at any resort!  Even in the best economic circumstances it's a personal decision/lifestyle choice rather than a financial investment opportunity.  But especially in this economic climate, I think anybody is taking too great a risk by purchasing any "luxury" item no matter which way they purchase.  These days the best sale price isn't worth risking when the current climate dictates that we should all be doing our best to put any discretionary income into the most secure savings plans we can find.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I think that only the folks who have money to burn should be buying timeshares right now.  And those folks?  The timeshare model doesn't appear to be the way they vacation.



Great answer.
Didn't mean to insult you but you have been driving a hard line on us AOC owners as to why we should listen to Marriott and pay the MFs unconditionaly.
But what you have just stated as to why I should NOT buy at this time IS the reason that many owners are overwhelmed with the increase in fees.
A more conservative approach to refurbishment would have been more in line.
Let's take care of what NEEDS to be done and when things get better go for the Bling.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> Great answer.
> Didn't mean to insult you but you have been driving a hard line on us AOC owners as to why we should listen to Marriott and pay the MFs unconditionaly.
> But what you have just stated as to why I should NOT buy at this time IS the reason that many owners are overwhelmed with the increase in fees.
> A more conservative approach to refurbishment would have been more in line.
> Let's take care of what NEEDS to be done and when things get better go for the Bling.



But I haven't said at all throughout this discussion that Marriott's/MVCI's/the BOD's positions should be accepted unconditionally.  Or at least, my understanding of the reasons for their positions shouldn't be translated to an unconditional acceptance of their actions.

Anyway, I agree and said above that possibly the special assessment/refurbishment could have been held off for a year or two in deference to the owners being hit with the m/f spike.  I can speculate that it didn't happen because Marriott/MVCI wanted to make sure the refurbishment would happen and now is the time it has to, while the sitting BOD is in favor of it, but that speculation is only my opinion.  The fact is, you owners were hit with unprecedented fee hikes and it's understandable that you're angry.  Acknowledging that, though, doesn't alleviate the damage that's been done by way of insufficient collections at your resort.


----------



## modoaruba

Insufficient collections for needs or bling?


----------



## Luckybee

qlaval said:


> A few weeks ago I did sent a letter to Arne Sorenson complaining and requesting some explanations about how Marriott justified the use of their B votes.
> 
> I've just received today a nice & very polite letter from Dirk Schavemaker.(Thank you)
> I will share the part that relate to the B shares.
> 
> _In accordance with the Aruba Ocean Club Association Bylaws, MVCI is allocated 1,500 votes per open director position as the owner of the B Shares associated with the commercial spaces at Aruba Ocean Club. In addition, at the time of the Annual Meeting, MVCI was entitled to an additional 230 votes per open director position in respect of Aruba Ocean Club weeks owned by MVCI. Other examples of MVCI exercising its voting rights at Aruba Ocean Club include the 2003 Annual Meeting. While MVCI has not always exercised its voting rights at Aruba Ocean Club or its other timeshare resorts, it reserves the right to do so in its discretion. At the recent Annual Meeting, MVCI cast its votes in favor of Mr. Frank Knox and Mr. Anthony Lifrieri.
> 
> At the time of the Annual Meeting there were approximately 24,000 votes per open director position eligible to be cast (for a total of approximately 48,000 total votes since there were two open director positions). Approximately 13,000 total votes were cast in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting.  Just under 7,000 votes were cast by owners other than MVCI prior to the Annual Meeting, and the tally of these votes gave Mr. Frank Knox the lead going into the Annual Meeting. These votes, together with votes cast at the meeting, resulted in Mr. Knox’s election. With respect to the second open Board position, Mr. Anthony Lifrieri received a substantial number of votes from owners other than MVCI prior to the Annual Meeting and received the most number of votes from owners other than MVCI at the Annual Meeting.  These votes resulted in Mr. Lifrieri’s election.
> 
> The official results of the election will be reflected in the minutes for the Annual Meeting.  The minutes will be available to all Aruba Ocean Club owners upon finalization and approval by the Board.
> _



Can anyone get numbers to verify the vote counts since they seem quite different than those provided by the owners who were present?


----------



## lovearuba

*more considerate*



SueDonJ said:


> But I haven't said at all throughout this discussion that Marriott's/MVCI's/the BOD's positions should be accepted unconditionally. Or at least, my understanding of the reasons for their positions shouldn't be translated to an unconditional acceptance of their actions.
> 
> Anyway, I agree and said above that possibly the special assessment/refurbishment could have been held off for a year or two in deference to the owners being hit with the m/f spike. I can speculate that it didn't happen because Marriott/MVCI wanted to make sure the refurbishment would happen and now is the time it has to, while the sitting BOD is in favor of it, but that speculation is only my opinion. The fact is, you owners were hit with unprecedented fee hikes and it's understandable that you're angry. Acknowledging that, though, doesn't alleviate the damage that's been done by way of insufficient collections at your resort.


 
I am pleased that your responses are more considerate than they appeared to be in the past. I was really a strong Marriott supporter for many years.  I loved the ocean club.  I was one of those people told by Marriott's representive, Michelle (a guy) that maintenance fees would never go up more than 4 to 5 percent a year.  I actually believed him.  You see, I trusted Marriott.  That trust has been damaged and now I have a timeshare that is costing too much to enjoy.  I would agree with a special assessment if I truly believed it would be used appropriately.  I'm not going to reiterate why I don't have the trust in Marriott that you do.  Our experiences really are much different and I hope that you get to keep your strong opinion on the Marriott brand.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> Insufficient collections for needs or bling?



Both, apparently, when you consider that infrastructure/energy costs on the island have increased to an extent that has never before occurred, and that what an individual defines as "bling" may be what Marriott/MVCI thinks of as its brand standard.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> I am pleased that your responses are more considerate than they appeared to be in the past. I was really a strong Marriott supporter for many years.  I loved the ocean club.  I was one of those people told by Marriott's representive, Michelle (a guy) that maintenance fees would never go up more than 4 to 5 percent a year.  I actually believed him.  You see, I trusted Marriott.  That trust has been damaged and now I have a timeshare that is costing too much to enjoy.  I would agree with a special assessment if I truly believed it would be used appropriately.  I'm not going to reiterate why I don't have the trust in Marriott that you do.  Our experiences really are much different and I hope that you get to keep your strong opinion on the Marriott brand.



Well, thank you for considering what I'm saying as opposed to how I'm saying it.  Honestly, there was less contention contained in my posts than what was perceived to be in them, but that's neither here nor there.

I've said that I hope you owners will at least be able to enjoy visits to your resort once all is said and done and the repairs/refurbishment have been completed.  I still hope for that for you, even if it only happens for a short period of time while you wait for a buyer, and whether you keep it or sell it, even if you never regain your trust with Marriott/MVCI.  The resort is beautiful and it appears from what's been posted here of the re-design that it will be even more beautiful when it's done.  Only each individual owner can decide for him/herself if the cost is worth the result.

I "trust" Marriott/MVCI to the extent that what they can and can't do is stipulated in the contracts.  We've been fortunate in that our sales rep hasn't misrepresented any of the product/program to us, and in fact our only confusion has resulted from dealing with reps in the Marriott Reward Points program.  I'm sure that's colored my judgment in favor of MVCI.  I'm also sure that's one of the reasons why I can look at your situation and see it differently than you do.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Both, apparently, when you consider that infrastructure/energy costs on the island have increased to an extent that has never before occurred, and that what an individual defines as "bling" may be what Marriott/MVCI thinks of as its brand standard.



As long as the "owners" are paying to spruce up or loose it( by default by not paying) for Marriott...
There is no choice to the owners. Once you sign on the dotted line you are theirs.
Don't like it,try to sell or don't pay and they get it back.
You cannot financially win.
Just think. You have a house and decide to sell a bedroom to someone.
In the contract there is a stipulation that the buyer "owns" a percentage of the house. They pay for that bedroom a set fee. There is also a maintanence fee.Since you own the rest,your share is larger and obviously can outvote any decision. You want to refurbish and demand the other owner to pay their share of the expense. They have a choice in paying to make your house look better or they can refuse. If they refuse,the contract stipulates that the "bedroom owner" forfeits their bedroom and reverts back to the house owner.
If they pay,they have a refurbished bedroom in a beautifully redecorated house which they really can never own.
'So the house owner can keep this going for their own benefit until the bedroom owner either defaults or sells to the next person.
'


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> ... You cannot financially win.



No, no you can't, not with a timeshare.  But you can have spectacular vacations in beautiful places.


----------



## lovearuba

*Not everyone*



SueDonJ said:


> No, no you can't, not with a timeshare. But you can have spectacular vacations in beautiful places.


 
Not if you can no longer afford to go there because your maintenance fees are so high.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> No, no you can't, not with a timeshare.  But you can have spectacular vacations in beautiful places.



Is that supposed to make me feel better?
Because I own what it cost me for one week as an owner I could have gotten TWO weeks of spectacularity at that price as a renter.


----------



## marksue

lovearuba said:


> Not if you can no longer afford to go there because your maintenance fees are so high.





And for many that is the case, especially when your cost of ownership doubles in a year.

As Modo says, it is now cheaper to rent at the OC then to own.  I no longer see a value prop to owning the OC.  

I can envision a similar situation of getting an assessment at the SC as they have projected a 25 year life on the roof just as they did at the OC. If the environmental conditions are such why did Marriott put a 25 year life span on the roofs?  I would rather pay $10 or $20 a year versus a big assessment after 15.


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> Try this direct link to the open PDF.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it includes the By-Laws.  But it wouldn't matter anyway, because as you've pointed out, what applies to one resort cannot be generally applied to another.
> 
> And doesn't all this just drive the point home, that it's necessary to have a qualified legal representative involved?



I can download it fine. But when I try to open it, Adobe gives me an error message that the file is corrupt and cannot be repaired.. I will try on another computer.

JMO - I do not think you need an attorney to read a timeshare document. Or even to prepare/send a demand letter (which is the general process to be followed initially). Any steps after that, sure.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> But it's gotten to the point where you can rent at the AOC cheaper than the MFs.
> You can now enjoy a soon to be remodeled,refurbished,new roof an windows,etc. Marriott facility without the ownership and fees.
> You don't have to buy the cow for the glass of milk.



This is true in the vast majority of timeshare resorts right now. Granted, there is greater disparity between the rent vs own equation at the OC.

And MVCI is the not the prime beneficiary of the refurb, the owners are. Revenues at the Champions sports bar are not going to increase drastically due to the presence of remodeled rooms or the fancy fixtures in the lobby.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Great answer.
> Didn't mean to insult you but you have been driving a hard line on us AOC owners as to why we should listen to Marriott and pay the MFs unconditionaly.



I do not think this has been said. You absolutely should question how your resort is operating. It is the "owners" responsibility to provides checks and balances to how the BoD is managing the resort. 

But once a duly elected BoD has explained how they used their business judgement to make a decision, you should accept that decision and move on. If based on the facts, you feel they are improperly making decisions then you should react accordingly. 

But make sure that you are reacting to the facts of the situation, and not the rhetoric of a former BoD members who feels wronged.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> I can envision a similar situation of getting an assessment at the SC as they have projected a 25 year life on the roof just as they did at the OC. If the environmental conditions are such why did Marriott put a 25 year life span on the roofs?  I would rather pay $10 or $20 a year versus a big assessment after 15.




Mark,

This rhetoric completely ignores the fact that MVCI admits that there was a problem with the roof, and is paying for a portion of it's replacement. This point keeps coming up, and you continue to ignore the fact that roof replacements, like tires, are subject to pro-rata warranty replacements. 

If the 25 year roof on your house fails, and is under warranty, you are going to be faced with a huge bill. The bill is going to be for the years of beneficial usage you received. This situation is no different. If the exact same thing happens at the SC, a similar assessment will occur. But is will be less, as more units are involved.

I fully understand that you want to be made "whole". 

MVCI could not have predicted the roof would have failed in order to collect the $10 per year ($100 total BTW) you suggest.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> Not if you can no longer afford to go there because your maintenance fees are so high.





modoaruba said:


> Is that supposed to make me feel better?
> Because I own what it cost me for one week as an owner I could have gotten TWO weeks of spectacularity at that price as a renter.





marksue said:


> And for many that is the case, especially when your cost of ownership doubles in a year.
> 
> As Modo says, it is now cheaper to rent at the OC then to own.  I no longer see a value prop to owning the OC.



And around and around and around we go ...

Of course, you owners have to re-evaluate ownership more thoroughly than those at most other resorts because of the recent substantial cost increases, but the rent v. buy discussion applies to every timeshare.  It's something every owner should consider throughout ownership.  But the general concensus of savvy timeshare owners is that if you determine that the timeshare lifestyle is for you, then you should buy where you want to go.  Especially in a smaller resort where inventory is limited, renting will not guarantee you the particular unit configuration/season that you want.

And seriously, I'm not sure that anything other than a rebate of the increased m/f and special assessment could make any owner feel better about the situation at your resort.  Each of you is being forced to determine now if your use and current costs make ownership is still worth the price.  Nobody can say that any individual owner's decision will be correct.  



marksue said:


> I can envision a similar situation of getting an assessment at the SC as they have projected a 25 year life on the roof just as they did at the OC. If the environmental conditions are such why did Marriott put a 25 year life span on the roofs?



Are we back to wishing bad things on owners at other resorts?  Because if not, I'm not understanding your comment.  It's been explained here that as a newer resort, Aruba Surf Club utilized more efficient and longer-lasting building materials.  Plus, Marriott did not project the life span of the roofs; the builders did.  Marriott certainly wasn't responsible for the Aruba Ocean Club roof builder going out of business resulting in no warranty coverage.



marksue said:


> I would rather pay $10 or $20 a year versus a big assessment after 15.



Well, this speaks to exactly what critics here have been saying throughout the discussion, that insufficient collections have been a major cause of the current financial situation at your resort.  Do you now agree with that opinion?

(Maybe it's a little late in the game, but what are the 3-letter codes for Ocean Club and Surf Club anyway?  It's beginning to get on my nerves, typing out the whole names!)


----------



## Bill4728

suedonJ said:
			
		

> (Maybe it's a little late in the game, but what are the 3-letter codes for Ocean Club and Surf Club anyway? It's beginning to get on my nerves, typing out the whole names!)


here are the code which II uses. 


> Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club • MAO
> 
> Marriott's Aruba Surf Club • MSU


Personally I'd use MAOC & MASC


----------



## modoaruba

I have been spewing my feelings about timeshares,Marriott,BOD,MFs,AOC etc.
I have come to the realization a long time ago that to accept the status quo because it cannot be changed.
As long as the real majority of owners are unaware or do not want to get involved with the issues,the governing bodies have carte blanche.
That is my view.
I look at what I paid for my timeshares,added the MFs for every year I've owned,and divided that number by those years. Very gloomy numbers.
What have I done? Live and learn.
I like my resort. It's very nice.I always enjoy my stay since I make the best of it.I do not take any negativity with me.I do not get in conversations regarding what is being discussed on this board.
I will be in Aruba soon and will enjoy my stay.Life is too short.

Incase Marriott has been reading my jibberish, I am bringing with me my own box of pens and probably should bring my own shampoo(just incase).


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> I have been spewing my feelings about timeshares,Marriott,BOD,MFs,AOC etc.
> I have come to the realization a long time ago that to accept the status quo because it cannot be changed.
> As long as the real majority of owners are unaware or do not want to get involved with the issues,the governing bodies have carte blanche.
> That is my view.
> I look at what I paid for my timeshares,added the MFs for every year I've owned,and divided that number by those years. Very gloomy numbers.
> What have I done? Live and learn.
> I like my resort. It's very nice.I always enjoy my stay since I make the best of it.I do not take any negativity with me.I do not get in conversations regarding what is being discussed on this board.
> I will be in Aruba soon and will enjoy my stay.Life is too short.
> 
> Incase Marriott has been reading my jibberish, I am bringing with me my own box of pens and probably should bring my own shampoo(just incase).



:rofl:  It's the pens - they get me every time.

I like your attitude, Modo, about your finances and your vacations.  Any of us could look at timeshare expenses and wonder where we'd be, financially, if we hadn't made that choice.  Probably 90% of the time we'd have more money in the bank, or more toys at home, and we'd never travel through life from anything except a hotel room.  Ugh.  But what's done is done, and a person can only make the best of his/her choices.  Relax and enjoy, that's as good a mantra as any.


----------



## SueDonJ

Bill4728 said:


> Personally I'd use MAOC & MASC



Will do.  Thanks, Bill.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> I can download it fine. But when I try to open it, Adobe gives me an error message that the file is corrupt and cannot be repaired.. I will try on another computer.



Hmmm, I don't know.  Mine d/l's and opens immediately.  If I could only figure out how to copy/paste from a PDF ....



ecwinch said:


> JMO - I do not think you need an attorney to read a timeshare document. Or even to prepare/send a demand letter (which is the general process to be followed initially). Any steps after that, sure.



Oh, I agree.  I can read it just fine, and generally know where to look for what I need because of indexes, but an attorney's knowledge would allow him/her to do it much faster than me with more focus and much fewer useless tangents.  Plus s/he would know when it's most appropriate to say "I object!"


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> Can anyone get numbers to verify the vote counts since they seem quite different than those provided by the owners who were present?
> 
> >>At the time of the Annual Meeting there were approximately 24,000 votes per open director position eligible to be cast (for a total of approximately 48,000 total votes since there were two open director positions). Approximately 13,000 total votes were cast in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting. Just under 7,000 votes were cast by owners other than MVCI prior to the Annual Meeting, and the tally of these votes gave Mr. Frank Knox the lead going into the Annual Meeting. These votes, together with votes cast at the meeting, resulted in Mr. Knox’s election. With respect to the second open Board position, Mr. Anthony Lifrieri received a substantial number of votes from owners other than MVCI prior to the Annual Meeting and received the most number of votes from owners other than MVCI at the Annual Meeting. These votes resulted in Mr. Lifrieri’s election.<<




Hmmmm.  Is it possible that it was not announced at the meeting how many votes were cast prior to it, so that the folks who were there would not have that information at the time they posted the results?  Is it possible that those 7,000 were the proxy votes that we've all been wondering were hiding?  This letter says that approx 13,000 were cast, just under 7,000 prior, which would leave a balance of the 6,000+ that was mentioned here by the folks who were at the meeting.  I don't know, but that would be one guess.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> Mark,
> 
> This rhetoric completely ignores the fact that MVCI admits that there was a problem with the roof, and is paying for a portion of it's replacement. This point keeps coming up, and you continue to ignore the fact that roof replacements, like tires, are subject to pro-rata warranty replacements.
> 
> If the 25 year roof on your house fails, and is under warranty, you are going to be faced with a huge bill. The bill is going to be for the years of beneficial usage you received. This situation is no different. If the exact same thing happens at the SC, a similar assessment will occur. But is will be less, as more units are involved.
> 
> I fully understand that you want to be made "whole".
> 
> MVCI could not have predicted the roof would have failed in order to collect the $10 per year ($100 total BTW) you suggest.



These are all good points but I'd expand on the "MVCI could not have predicted..." a bit.  I think that if the roof was leaking as far back as owners say it was, the BOD should have determined that it was necessary to increase the reserve fund at least minimally to offset any repairs that could have been prudently predicted given the leaks.  I say the BOD and not MVCI because the contractual responsibility for reserve matters rests with the BOD.  Certainly if the owners knew about the leaks then it must have been mentioned to the BOD members, if they didn't know themselves.  Doesn't it follow that the BOD would have at least mentioned the concerns to the people who were hired to write the reserve-related reports for the property's condition?


----------



## m61376

SueDonJ said:


> :rofl:  It's the pens - they get me every time.
> 
> I like your attitude, Modo, about your finances and your vacations.  Any of us could look at timeshare expenses and wonder where we'd be, financially, if we hadn't made that choice.  Probably 90% of the time we'd have more money in the bank, or more toys at home, and we'd never travel through life from anything except a hotel room.  Ugh.  But what's done is done, and a person can only make the best of his/her choices.  Relax and enjoy, that's as good a mantra as any.



The reality is most of us decided to buy as an investment in lifestyle. I know that sounds like a sales pitch, but there is a lot of truth in that. How many people have posted that it forced them to take vacations, etc.? Or that they took an extra trip, or perhaps got to vacation with family or friends that they otherwise would not have?

There are certain things money can't buy. Personally, we only discovered this about 3 years ago. A year and a half ago, because we owned a unit, I was able to avail ourselves of a Getaway week in Cancun and we took my parents a week before their 60th Anniversary. We had a family vacation planned for the beginning of January when our daughter was on intersession, but because we had access to a 2BR villa for less than a thousand dollars we decided to take an extra trip. If we had to book 2 hotel rooms costing $500-600 a night we likely wouldn't have taken the extra trip. Well, sadly and unexpectedly, my Dad died a month later. The memories from that week truly are priceless and that timeshare week was the best purchase we ever made!

Recently we decided to purchase a 3BR unit. Friends are coming down for a long weekend at one end and my daughter and her boyfriend for a long weekend at the other, and my Mom is coming down for the week with us. How nice is it to be able to share a vacation with people who are special to us? 

So, yes, the MF's are high, and I can certainly understand all the angst expressed here. But my point is people shouldn't be so angered that they lose sight of why they thought their purchase was so right in the first place.


----------



## modoaruba

m61376 said:


> The reality is most of us decided to buy as an investment in lifestyle. I know that sounds like a sales pitch, but there is a lot of truth in that. How many people have posted that it forced them to take vacations, etc.? Or that they took an extra trip, or perhaps got to vacation with family or friends that they otherwise would not have?
> 
> There are certain things money can't buy. Personally, we only discovered this about 3 years ago. A year and a half ago, because we owned a unit, I was able to avail ourselves of a Getaway week in Cancun and we took my parents a week before their 60th Anniversary. We had a family vacation planned for the beginning of January when our daughter was on intersession, but because we had access to a 2BR villa for less than a thousand dollars we decided to take an extra trip. If we had to book 2 hotel rooms costing $500-600 a night we likely wouldn't have taken the extra trip. Well, sadly and unexpectedly, my Dad died a month later. The memories from that week truly are priceless and that timeshare week was the best purchase we ever made!
> 
> Recently we decided to purchase a 3BR unit. Friends are coming down for a long weekend at one end and my daughter and her boyfriend for a long weekend at the other, and my Mom is coming down for the week with us. How nice is it to be able to share a vacation with people who are special to us?
> 
> So, yes, the MF's are high, and I can certainly understand all the angst expressed here. But my point is people shouldn't be so angered that they lose sight of why they thought their purchase was so right in the first place.



Great post. I really mean that.
I've been going to Aruba for about 25 years,of those,11 years at the AOC.
Got to meet many people. Since I go around the same times each year,get to see the same people. Even made great friends along the way.
Sometimes we bring friends and/or relatives.Since we are familiar with the resort and our expectations are always met, we have a great time.
We are on our way again this weekend and already know some of the other owners that will be there.
That is why I leave all the negativity behind,relax on the beach,enjoy the company,enjoy the water and sun,the restaurants,and whatever comes our way.

I'll catch up on this board(maybe) when I return.

I'll have a drink for all of you while I sit back and watch the sunset.

WHATEVER!


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> WHATEVER!



Safe travels, and have a great vacation.


----------



## marksue

modoaruba

I'll catch up on this board(maybe) when I return.

I'll have a drink for all of you while I sit back and watch the sunset.

WHATEVER!:wave:[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Have 2.  Have a great vacation.


----------



## m61376

Ditto- have a great trip!!! With this wonderful weather we've been having (as it is pouring yet again ) I bet you can't wait!


----------



## Zac495

Have a fabulous trip!!!


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> These are all good points but I'd expand on the "MVCI could not have predicted..." a bit.  I think that if the roof was leaking as far back as owners say it was, the BOD should have determined that it was necessary to increase the reserve fund at least minimally to offset any repairs that could have been prudently predicted given the leaks.  I say the BOD and not MVCI because the contractual responsibility for reserve matters rests with the BOD.  Certainly if the owners knew about the leaks then it must have been mentioned to the BOD members, if they didn't know themselves.  Doesn't it follow that the BOD would have at least mentioned the concerns to the people who were hired to write the reserve-related reports for the property's condition?



No, I think this was MVCI's responsibility to present this information to the BoD. The BoD is a group of part-time volunteers. MVCI has day-to-day responsibilty for operating the property. If the water damaged occurred to the extent alleged, then MVCI should have investigated the cause, and then reported that problem to the BoD. With recommendations on how to address.

I am uncomfortable pinning all this blame, and the responsbility for everything on the BoD.  A well-run resort has the BoD setting policy and direction, and the managing entity running the day to day.


----------



## SueDonJ

SueDonJ said:


> These are all good points but I'd expand on the "MVCI could not have predicted..." a bit.  I think that if the roof was leaking as far back as owners say it was, the BOD should have determined that it was necessary to increase the reserve fund at least minimally to offset any repairs that could have been prudently predicted given the leaks.  I say the BOD and not MVCI because the contractual responsibility for reserve matters rests with the BOD.  Certainly if the owners knew about the leaks then it must have been mentioned to the BOD members, if they didn't know themselves.  Doesn't it follow that the BOD would have at least mentioned the concerns to the people who were hired to write the reserve-related reports for the property's condition?





ecwinch said:


> No, I think this was MVCI's responsibility to present this information to the BoD. The BoD is a group of part-time volunteers. MVCI has day-to-day responsibilty for operating the property. If the water damaged occurred to the extent alleged, then MVCI should have investigated the cause, and then reported that problem to the BoD. With recommendations on how to address.
> 
> I am uncomfortable pinning all this blame, and the responsbility for everything on the BoD.  A well-run resort has the BoD setting policy and direction, and the managing entity running the day to day.



Based on this post from DaveM, >>_...Marriott's typical management agreement (I'm looking at two Marriott/HOA management agreements right now) includes a provision that makes it clear that it's the BOD's responsibility to determine the appropriate level for reserves. The contracts provide that Marriott provides assistance to the BOD with respect to reserves, but operates in that capacity only “at the direction of the Board”._<<

I understand your point about the BOD not being onsite therefore maybe not privy to all information, in general.  I'll even meet you halfway and say that the MVCI employees should have made sure that the concerns about roof leaks were mentioned to the BOD.

But do we know that they didn't?  I'd find it hard to believe that it was necessary, regardless, seeing as owners have documented here that they've noticed the roof leaking for years and that they formerly had a receptive BOD to which they did bring their concerns.  For years here you had a sitting President who was well aware of the roof leaks - proof of that is in the records that the BOD over which he presided considered a lawsuit at one time against MVCI because of structural issues.  So I do pin the responsibility for under-funded reserves for roof repairs/replacement on that BOD.


----------



## AOC LOVER

*Where is everyone*

I've been away for a month and just caught up on the board.  Messages stopped abruptly on June 27.  Is this board still active?


----------



## lovearuba

*yes*

Yes, it is still active but there are no recent developments to report.  Were you in Aruba?  Did you get the recent letter from Frank Knox.  I didnt think it was worth posting it.


----------



## modoaruba

*Just got back*

Thanks to all who have wished us a good vacation.
Surprisingly no new posts.
We had a great time as usual.
The resort and staff were as expected-great.
For those who believe it does not rain in Aruba in July,well,
Friday night we were in Savanetta at the Old Man by the Sea restaurant.
We just finished our entrees and were given the desert menu when the sky opened up and down came a deluge.
A few minutes later the lights went out.
The only electronic device working was the credit card machine.Imagine that.
We always rent a car,so we drove back to the AOC in the pouring rain,streets flooding,and no lights on the entire island except the car lights and those on generators.Took us about an hour.
The AOC has limited generator lighting.We were given a flashlight for the room.
We made the best of it.Sat out on the balcony with martinis watching the lightening over the sea.


----------



## Zac495

In case anyone missed this when I posted that I sold my Marriotts - you CAN resell your Ocean Club through Marriott, but it will take a long time. If you put it on the list and sell it, you will get 16.5. Allan Madison, the resale manager, is wonderful to work with. I do believe it will be 2 or 3 years to wait, however, which is why I sold it for 11K privately. 

Corey, the GM, contacted me by phone early on this thread trying to rationalize everything. He said he'd help me sell the unit ,but asked that I stop posting  - I don't want to say that he told me not to - that would be a non-truth , but rather it was clear that Marriott was watching. It FELT to me as though if I cooperated - meaning :ignore: - I might be helped. 

Never happened. Although he emailed me back when I wrote and was pleasant, nothing happened - he couldn't help. I got myself on the resale list, but I was #24 in line and stayed there until I pulled myself off.

I am very glad to no longer own there. I took a 4K loss (bought it resale - yes you can list it if you bought it resale) - but I used it for many years at the lower fee - plus - for some reason my buyer asked if we'd rent it back next year at 1650 - what a deal for a 2 bed oceanview - so we said yes. 

I continue to read the thread and hope the best for the resort and its owners. I appreciate what Marksue has done - I am not going to join in the banter of whether he is doing it the right way or not - I am not helping so I have no right to throw stones or squirt perfume (I made up that expression - it means the opposite of throwing stones ):hysterical: 

Anyway, I have had a bunch of people pm me about how I sold it - so I wanted to make sure owners saw that it can be listed resale for a decent price - but be prepared to WAIT. If you want to go for a few more years, but would like to be rid of it eventually, list it. YOu can always say no when it's FINALLY your turn. Or put ads here, redweek, etc and take less. I think 11K was a good price for right now.

I'm in Hawaii - posting pictures on Hawaii board!


----------



## marksue

Ellen,

Congrats on selling the unit.  I hope you are enjoying Hawaii.  We are moving forward on this end. 

Marriott has told owners recently they are not taking on any new units for listing as they have too many now.


----------



## marksue

I just heard from an owner that some of the ceiling tiles on the first floor were down due to leaks in the roof.  IS there anyone down there or jsut back in the last day or so who can anyone verify this?  If there is a leak, with a new roof, why is the building still leaking?  Renovations are to start next month, they better have all these leaks fixed or we will be throwing away alot of money.


----------



## modoaruba

Just left there Sunday.
There were terrible storms on Friday and Sunday.
No leaks were observed by us.


----------



## Slakk

marksue said:


> I just heard from an owner that some of the ceiling tiles on the first floor were down due to leaks in the roof.  IS there anyone down there or jsut back in the last day or so who can anyone verify this?  If there is a leak, with a new roof, why is the building still leaking?  Renovations are to start next month, they better have all these leaks fixed or we will be throwing away alot of money.



I was told that fire alarm sprinklers went off on a floor above and caused this.  It happened on Sunday I think.  We spoke to one of the people working on it - nothing whatsoever due to the rain Friday.

Not just a few it was a FLOOD - we happened to be walking through to the SC when it happened.  They have most of the hallway behind a tarp for about 20 feet.  Just enough room for you to walk by.


----------



## timeos2

*Get it right or credibility disappears*



Slakk said:


> I was told that fire alarm sprinklers went off on a floor above and caused this.  It happened on Sunday I think.  We spoke to one of the people working on it - nothing whatsoever due to the rain Friday.
> 
> Not just a few it was a FLOOD - we happened to be walking through to the SC when it happened.  They have most of the hallway behind a tarp for about 20 feet.  Just enough room for you to walk by.



See how assumptions can be deceiving? Until all the facts are in the best built theoretical scenario can fall apart quickly. From potential "proof" of yet another poorly executed repair/replacement to a perfectly plausible and no fault occurrence (unless the activation of the sprinkler system is also going to be somehow related to Marriott management shortcomings) in the blink of an eye. Be sure you have your facts correct or all you end up doing is repeating the oft told story of the little boy crying wolf.


----------



## ecwinch

timeos2 said:


> See how assumptions can be deceiving? Until all the facts are in the best built theoretical scenario can fall apart quickly. From potential "proof" of yet another poorly executed repair/replacement to a perfectly plausible and no fault occurrence (unless the activation of the sprinkler system is also going to be somehow related to Marriott management shortcomings) in the blink of an eye. Be sure you have your facts correct or all you end up doing is repeating the oft told story of the little boy crying wolf.



As we say in Texas "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"....


----------



## AwayWeGo

*And As We Say On T. U. G. - B. B. S. . . .*




ecwinch said:


> As we say in Texas "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"....


 _ *. . .* Don't Confuse Me With Facts -- My Mind Is Made Up. _

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


----------



## marksue

timeos2 said:


> See how assumptions can be deceiving? Until all the facts are in the best built theoretical scenario can fall apart quickly. From potential "proof" of yet another poorly executed repair/replacement to a perfectly plausible and no fault occurrence (unless the activation of the sprinkler system is also going to be somehow related to Marriott management shortcomings) in the blink of an eye. Be sure you have your facts correct or all you end up doing is repeating the oft told story of the little boy crying wolf.



That is why I asked for verification.  I didn't make any accusations.  So now we ahve the facts.  Lots of questions here where a stmt has been made and verification asked for.


----------



## Slakk

marksue said:


> That is why I asked for verification.  I didn't make any accusations.  So now we ahve the facts.  Lots of questions here where a stmt has been made and verification asked for.



As we left today they had fixed the ceiling on the one side and had moved the tarp to the part they had been letting people walk through.  In a few days it should be all fixed.

Glad I happened to be walking by when it happened and talk to one of the people


----------



## Zac495

marksue said:


> Ellen,
> 
> Congrats on selling the unit.  I hope you are enjoying Hawaii.  We are moving forward on this end.
> 
> Marriott has told owners recently they are not taking on any new units for listing as they have too many now.



Loving Hawaii and SO GLAD to be rid of Aruba. I am very hopeful that all will work out for all of the owners there. That stinks they're not putting anyone else on the list. If the economy recovers, people will be able to sell for a better price than we got. Our buyer got a great price!


----------



## qlaval

*Here's the official voting results for the 2009 Annual Meeting:*


----------



## lovearuba

*messages often confusing*



AwayWeGo said:


> _*. . .* Don't Confuse Me With Facts -- My Mind Is Made Up. _
> 
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA. ​


 

I am often confused when I read your comments. I just shake my head and think, what is he actually saying. 

I do understand repairs were made and do understand that rain is not a normal occurrance in Aruba but given the known leaky conditions of that resort, these things should be fixed by now. I am not really following how a ceiling needed to be fixed because a fire alarm condition.  What exactly does that mean.   If there is indeed a continued problem we should ask for pictures so that owners can have relevant information.  Marksue did just that, he asked for validation.

For all the ocean club owners, please take pics of the things you experience when you are there and post them if you think they are relevant to the condition of the resort. I would also recommend that pics of the renovations get posted.


----------



## timeos2

*There wasn't a leak yet now some think there was*



lovearuba said:


> I am often confused when I read your comments. I just shake my head and think, what is he actually saying.
> 
> I do understand repairs were made and do understand that rain is not a normal occurrance in Aruba but given the known leaky conditions of that resort, these things should be fixed by now. I am not really following how a ceiling needed to be fixed because a fire alarm condition.  What exactly does that mean.   If there is indeed a continued problem we should ask for pictures so that owners can have relevant information.  Marksue did just that, he asked for validation.





			
				marksue said:
			
		

> I just heard from an owner that some of the ceiling tiles on the first floor were down due to leaks in the roof. IS there anyone down there or jsut back in the last day or so who can anyone verify this? If there is a leak, with a new roof, why is the building still leaking? Renovations are to start next month, they better have all these leaks fixed or we will be throwing away alot of money.



The simple fact is that rain wasn't involved in the situation yet the original post was worded (purposely or not) so it sounded like yet another Marriott Management outrage of incompetence. Your post also supports that misconception as the whole thing turned out to be a fire sprinkler problem. So "things should be fixed by now" doesn't apply to this. The on going and often speculative charges lead to this type of error and there are most likely others like you that now think the roof is still a problem and once again the Board/Marriott has blown it thanks to an incorrect posting. It really undermines any credibility of those crying wolf. The original post didn't ask for verification but sounded like someone had uncovered yet another roof/building leak problem after they were supposed to be fixed. "Why is the building still leaking?" is not an appeal for verification it is yet another accusation of faulty work done. Artful changes to "clarify" after being called on an obvious error doesn't change the original post. 

A post asking "I hear there were some ceiling tiles that were damaged by water. Does anyone know what happened?" would have allowed for the proper response from someone in the know and not resulted in a false impression of roof problems. Its all in the wording and the assumptions being made.


----------



## lovearuba

*underlying credibility*



timeos2 said:


> The simple fact is that rain wasn't involved in the situation yet the original post was worded (purposely or not) so it sounded like yet another Marriott Management outrage of incompetence. Your post also supports that misconception as the whole thing turned out to be a fire sprinkler problem. So "things should be fixed by now" doesn't apply to this. The on going and often speculative charges lead to this type of error and there are most likely others like you that now think the roof is still a problem and once again the Board/Marriott has blown it thanks to an incorrect posting. It really undermines any credibility of those crying wolf. The original post didn't ask for verification but sounded like someone had uncovered yet another roof/building leak problem after they were supposed to be fixed. "Why is the building still leaking?" is not an appeal for verification it is yet another accusation of faulty work done. Artful changes to "clarify" after being called on an obvious error doesn't change the original post.
> 
> A post asking "I hear there were some ceiling tiles that were damaged by water. Does anyone know what happened?" would have allowed for the proper response from someone in the know and not resulted in a false impression of roof problems. Its all in the wording and the assumptions being made.


 
I get what you are saying and I for one will be really pleased if the roof and leaking building have really been fixed. You are right in that folks like me will continue to question if the problems have been fixed since the building has been leaking for years,  Lets hope it is rectified and I do hope folks like Marksue or anyone else that is in Aruba shares any updates that are relative to this issue.


----------



## ecwinch

timeos2 said:


> A post asking "I hear there were some ceiling tiles that were damaged by water. Does anyone know what happened?" would have allowed for the proper response from someone in the know and not resulted in a false impression of roof problems. Its all in the wording and the assumptions being made.



Exactly. If the post had just stopped there, then it would have a simple straightforward question. But even after the edit, Mark has to make the inference that the roof was not adequately repaired. 

This is the consistent trend where all information - no matter how benign - is viewed through the prism of "MVCI is evil".


----------



## ecwinch

qlaval said:


> *Here's the official voting results for the 2009 Annual Meeting:*



Any thoughts on why Frank Knox has the exact number of votes from the proxies as he does from the votes cast during the meeting?


----------



## Luckybee

timeos2 said:


> The simple fact is that rain wasn't involved in the situation yet the original post was worded (purposely or not) so it sounded like yet another Marriott Management outrage of incompetence. Your post also supports that misconception as the whole thing turned out to be a fire sprinkler problem. So "things should be fixed by now" doesn't apply to this. The on going and often speculative charges lead to this type of error and there are most likely others like you that now think the roof is still a problem and once again the Board/Marriott has blown it thanks to an incorrect posting. It really undermines any credibility of those crying wolf. The original post didn't ask for verification but sounded like someone had uncovered yet another roof/building leak problem after they were supposed to be fixed. "Why is the building still leaking?" is not an appeal for verification it is yet another accusation of faulty work done. Artful changes to "clarify" after being called on an obvious error doesn't change the original post.
> 
> A post asking "I hear there were some ceiling tiles that were damaged by water. Does anyone know what happened?" would have allowed for the proper response from someone in the know and not resulted in a false impression of roof problems. Its all in the wording and the assumptions being made.




The simple fact is that no one knows as yet what caused the "flooding" this time. Simply because one person was told by someone working on it that it was sprinklers doesn't make it so. OC history is filled with numerous examples of misinformation which has been given out by persons doing work on the OC over the years . As an example we personally experienced, when we couldnt get the AC in our room comfortable and the halls seemed to be very warm, we kept asking about the problem. We were repeatedly told there wasnt one. Through our own digging we found out that there in fact was a significant problem with the one tower condenser and that it had been on order for a couple of months from Florida. We were also told that the staff and workers had specific orders not to tell the guests about the AC issue. 
When the stairwells were being repaired for the umteeth time from water damage, we were told that it was that the "paint hadnt cured properly". I could go on and on with examples as Im sure many others could as well.
Lets just say Im going to reserve judgement on this one.


----------



## timeos2

*Let The King handle it in song*



Luckybee said:


> The simple fact is that no one knows as yet what caused the "flooding" this time. Simply because one person was told by someone working on it that it was sprinklers doesn't make it so. OC history is filled with numerous examples of misinformation which has been given out by persons doing work on the OC over the years .



Is there anyway we can have a link to the classic Elvis Presley song "Suspicious Minds" playing automatically on this thread? Seems that the line "We can't go on together with suspicious minds" would just about wrap up the whole thing. 

Can you imagine working under these conditions? Every move dissected by at least two or more opposing groups with one offering congratulations for a job well done while another wants to dock your pay or have you fired for outrageously inappropriate actions. It is almost an unworkable situation that sounds like its getting worse.  What a nightmare for owners both for enjoyment of their ownership and their wallets.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*The King On U-Tube.*




timeos2 said:


> Is there anyway we can have a link to the classic Elvis Presley song "Suspicious Minds" playing automatically on this thread?


Click here for that tune via U-Tube. 

Who knew it was a timeshare song ? 

Live & learn, eh ? 

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


----------



## modoaruba

Oy! So this is what I came back to?
Can't wait to get back.
Look at the bright side, the expensive chandeliers were not in the ceiling yet.


----------



## lovearuba

*I agree with that one*



modoaruba said:


> Oy! So this is what I came back to?
> Can't wait to get back.
> Look at the bright side, the expensive chandeliers were not in the ceiling yet.


 
This is good news, imagine the water from the fire sprinklers flooding the new chandeliers?   That of course is assumming it was fire sprinklers.


----------



## lovearuba

*HMM*



ecwinch said:


> Any thoughts on why Frank Knox has the exact number of votes from the proxies as he does from the votes cast during the meeting?


 
Guess that must be his lucky number.  :ignore:


----------



## modoaruba

lovearuba said:


> Guess that must be his lucky number.  :ignore:



Double coupon day!


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Double coupon day!



Good one!!!!!


----------



## AOC LOVER

*Paradise*

Just finished 8 wonderful days at the Ocean Club.  The facility and the staff are simply outstanding.  I think those of us who are owners there are very fortunate.


----------



## Zac495

AOC LOVER said:


> Just finished 8 wonderful days at the Ocean Club.  The facility and the staff are simply outstanding.  I think those of us who are owners there are very fortunate.



I agree - beautiful place - if you go annually, the fees aren't too bad - 2 bedroom for 1650 - probably can rent for 2500. But if you go only every few years, better to rent or trade in. Glad you had fun!!!


----------



## modoaruba

AOC LOVER said:


> Just finished 8 wonderful days at the Ocean Club.  The facility and the staff are simply outstanding.  I think those of us who are owners there are very fortunate.



Totally agree.We go twice a year since 1998.
The knowing that we will be coming back makes it feel like a second home.
Always had a great vacation there. Yes we are fortunate.


----------



## marksue

*letter from AOC Board*

Some owners just got an email from the AOC board regarding the letter they got from our lawyer requiring the release of names and addresses of all 8750 owners.  As soon as I can I will attach the letter or at least copy it as an attachment.  

They are trying to trying to get everyone to check a box that says they do not want their contact info released, because Aruba law will require them to.

They are trying to scare the owners that the info would get into the hands of telemarketers (isn’t that what Marriott uses our contact info for).  The letter from the lawyer stated the reason for the names and telemarketing was not listed.

If any owner did not get the letter drop me a note and I will forward it.  I am working on this weekend to get a version on here.


----------



## lovearuba

*letter*

Hi
I did not receive it yet, lots of others.  Mark, you may want to also take note of those who let you know they did not receive the letter.  I usually get lots of correspondence from them so I expect to receive it.


----------



## APerky1

*Received Letter from AOC today*

Hi All,

I just received my letter in the mail from the Board.  Why the request for names and addresses?  Normally, I would not want my information released for privacy concerns, but if this is for a good reason, I'll be glad to release.

Haven't been reading the boards in the last few weeks, so bring me up to speed please.

I'm renting my unit out in September to a close friend for $1300.


----------



## AOC LOVER

*Shameful Waste*

I received my letter today.  35cents postage times 8,570 members.  That's $3,000 wasted.  Probably legal costs too.  What a shame.  All to keep more than one side of the story away from the owners.

Too bad the Board members aren't made to pay from their own personal pockets for their misfeasance.


----------



## AOC LOVER

*Why do our Board Members Hide?????*

This is elementary stuff.

Why aren't our Board members on line, participating in this discussion?  If they are sure their position is just, why do they not explain it fully, and respond at least once to each critic?

If we succeed in ousting these Board members, we should elect only those candidates who agree in advance to take the time necessary to maintain reasonable 2 way communications with members, even those who may disagree with them.


----------



## marksue

aperky, The board doesn’t want you to hear the facts of what is going on with the Ocean Club.  Allan Cohen, myself  and the group of concerned owners have requested from Marriott the list of all owners so they can be contacted regarding the calling of a special meeting.  We want to give the owners the opportunity to have a say.  Instead they send out a mailing trying to scare the owners that the names will be used for telemarketing.  That is not why it the truth, but this is just typical of how the board has been operating.  They are trying to keep the owners in the dark.  

Let them give out your name and the only information you will get is from the Aruba Attorney who is working with us, to get a list of owners to call a special meeting.  Drop me a note if you would like more info.

AOC lover that is what we have been trying to do.  Hold the board and Marriott responsible but yet they keep giving us more reasons to wonder what they are afraid of by their actions.


----------



## lovearuba

*intentionally misleading letter*

I got the letter and I feel it was totally misleading.  It is an attempt to keep folks from signing it by the underlying threat that their personal information will be given out.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> I got the letter and I feel it was totally misleading.  It is an attempt to keep folks from signing it by the underlying threat that their personal information will be given out.


But the truth is their personal information would be given out and that the members, BOD and MVCI don't truly know how those names will be used.  Given the dissent, I would think it only natural for the other side to be distrustful of such a request and the intentions involved and to realize there are no real guarantees that the addresses won't be used inappropriately or at the least, end up in the wrong hands inadvertently.  I believe I posted twice much earlier in this thread that the group should be able to have the BOD mail anything that was reasonable though the requesting group would have to pay the postage.  Email addresses should not be included even if the info is otherwise released, IMO.


----------



## Luckybee

lovearuba said:


> I got the letter and I feel it was totally misleading.  It is an attempt to keep folks from signing it by the underlying threat that their personal information will be given out.



I havent seen the letter yet. Based on history I find we here in Canada are usually about a week or two behind in getting snail mail from Marriott. 

Are you saying that the letter does not indicate the real reason the info would be provided ie :"a group wishing to apply for a special meeting" or some similiar wording. Or are you saying they are adding to that with the threat of telemarketing? Reason I ask is that I would be surprised if they only used the telemarketing threat which could potentially have them running afoul of Aruban law if/when this goes in front of a judge. It is one thing to be misleading, but quite another to simply provide innacurate info. Anyone have a copy they can scan for me ? My curiousity is piqued...lol.


----------



## Retired to Travel

*No, thanks...*

As an AOC owner, I would be quite upset with MVCI or our BOD if they were to provide my contact information to just ANYone requesting it, including another owner or group of owners. We declined to sign up with the beach solicitor in February when we were in Aruba, partly for privacy concerns, and we would not want MVCI to circumvent our decision. Any release of personal information had better be done on an “opt-in” basis, or MVCI might find themselves in a lawsuit for violating their own privacy policy. I can’t imagine that many owners would prefer to have their contact information released without specific permission to do so. Once it's out, the spread of this info cannot be controlled.


----------



## Luckybee

Retired to Travel said:


> As an AOC owner, I would be quite upset with MVCI or our BOD if they were to provide my contact information to just ANYone requesting it, including another owner or group of owners. We declined to sign up with the beach solicitor in February when we were in Aruba, partly for privacy concerns, and we would not want MVCI to circumvent our decision. Any release of personal information had better be done on an “opt-in” basis, or MVCI might find themselves in a lawsuit for violating their own privacy policy. I can’t imagine that many owners would prefer to have their contact information released without specific permission to do so. Once it's out, the spread of this info cannot be controlled.



Except they have to deal with Aruban law, which as I understand it will force them to release the info unless objected to by the member.


----------



## Dean

Luckybee said:


> Except they have to deal with Aruban law, which as I understand it will force them to release the info unless objected to by the member.


Based on the info I had from another resort several years ago, I'm not sure that's the case.  My understanding is all they had to do was provide access, not the list itself.


----------



## Luckybee

I guess time will tell


----------



## ecwinch

AOC LOVER said:


> This is elementary stuff.
> 
> Why aren't our Board members on line, participating in this discussion?  If they are sure their position is just, why do they not explain it fully, and respond at least once to each critic?
> 
> If we succeed in ousting these Board members, we should elect only those candidates who agree in advance to take the time necessary to maintain reasonable 2 way communications with members, even those who may disagree with them.



It is not as simple as one would might like it. The BoD makes decisions as a group. For one member to come on to TUG and post in response to questions, that would presume that they have the authority to speak for the entire BoD. Something that no member of the BoD has.

They could come here and provide their personal opinions on the issues, but that has certain challenges also. There is a previous post in this thread on that issue.

And that was something not even Allan was willing to do when he was a BoD member. It was only after his term expired that he appeared.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> Except they have to deal with Aruban law, which as I understand it will force them to release the info unless objected to by the member.



Of course it's possible that Aruban Law might come into play here with the request for ownership contact information, but I'm skeptical.  The last time "an Aruba law" was mentioned as a reason for Marriott to respond in a certain manner to this group's request, it turned out that Aruban law had nothing to do with it - it was simply a matter of the petition not including either the necessary owners' signatures or proof that Marksue was legally authorized to act for this group of owners (as he asserted.) 



Dean said:


> Based on the info I had from another resort several years ago, I'm not sure that's the case.  My understanding is all they had to do was provide access, not the list itself.



Hmmmm, interesting...  You're referring to one of the Aruban timeshares that you mentioned before in this thread - the ones that had assessment issues?  And there wasn't a special Aruban law in that case about releasing ownership information that superceded the contracts' obligations?  I would guess that most MVCI properties utilize similar contract language insofar as local laws allow ...

According to page 19 of the Master Declaration for Shadow Ridge (which is the only electronic source we have so far for any MVCI resort) under "Inspection of Books and Records, (1) The Master Association shall have the power and duty to open, at any reasonable time during business hours, the books and records of the Master Association for inspection by any Member or Declarant's Mortgagee upon the written demand by such Member of Declarant's Mortgagee; provided, however, that the the Master Association shall be obligated to open its books and records for inspection by a Member only if the Member requests such inspection for a purpose reasonably related to the member's interests as a Member.  The inspection may be made in person or by an agent or attorney and shall include the right to copy and make extracts.

"(2) The Board shall have the power and duty to establish reasonable rules with respect to (A) notice to be given to the custodian of records by the person desiring to make the inspection; (B) hours and days of the week when such an inspection may be made; and (C) payment of the cost of reproducing copies of documents requested by a Member of Morgagee."

I don't see how that translates to "MVCI must furnish at its expense the complete contact information for every owner to any attorney who requests such for any reason."


----------



## SueDonJ

AOC LOVER said:


> This is elementary stuff.
> 
> Why aren't our Board members on line, participating in this discussion?  If they are sure their position is just, why do they not explain it fully, and respond at least once to each critic?



You're right, it's elementary stuff.  Way back on October 1, 2008, in the first post here and in subsequent posts, a lawsuit was threatened.  Many folks have theorized that because of that threat, it makes perfect sense for Marriott/MVCI/the BOD to not participate in informal discussions regarding any of the issues.  Here's one post by DaveM as an example.



AOC LOVER said:


> If we succeed in ousting these Board members, we should elect only those candidates who agree in advance to take the time necessary to maintain reasonable 2 way communications with members, even those who may disagree with them.



How could such an agreement be binding, and what contract provisions would allow it in the first place?  Consider that BOD members are bound by specific obligations and stipulations contained in the contracts.


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> Some owners just got an email from the AOC board regarding the letter they got from our lawyer requiring the release of names and addresses of all 8750 owners.  As soon as I can I will attach the letter or at least copy it as an attachment.
> 
> They are trying to trying to get everyone to check a box that says they do not want their contact info released, because Aruba law will require them to.
> 
> They are trying to scare the owners that the info would get into the hands of telemarketers (isn’t that what Marriott uses our contact info for).  The letter from the lawyer stated the reason for the names and telemarketing was not listed.
> 
> If any owner did not get the letter drop me a note and I will forward it.  I am working on this weekend to get a version on here.





marksue said:


> aperky, The board doesn’t want you to hear the facts of what is going on with the Ocean Club.  Allan Cohen, myself  and the group of concerned owners have requested from Marriott the list of all owners so they can be contacted regarding the calling of a special meeting.  We want to give the owners the opportunity to have a say.  Instead they send out a mailing trying to scare the owners that the names will be used for telemarketing.  That is not why it the truth, but this is just typical of how the board has been operating.  They are trying to keep the owners in the dark.
> 
> Let them give out your name and the only information you will get is from the Aruba Attorney who is working with us, to get a list of owners to call a special meeting.  Drop me a note if you would like more info.
> 
> AOC lover that is what we have been trying to do.  Hold the board and Marriott responsible but yet they keep giving us more reasons to wonder what they are afraid of by their actions.



Mark, it's confusing from this whether or not you've retained an attorney to deal with this issue or if you simply had an attorney write the request and now you're doing the follow-up.  If you did retain one, what is his/her reaction to the response from the BOD?


----------



## Dean

SueDonJ said:


> Hmmmm, interesting...  You're referring to one of the Aruban timeshares that you mentioned before in this thread - the ones that had assessment issues?  And there wasn't a special Aruban law in that case about releasing ownership information that superceded the contracts' obligations?  I would guess that most MVCI properties utilize similar contract language insofar as local laws allow ...
> 
> According to page 19 of the Master Declaration for Shadow Ridge (which is the only electronic source we have so far for any MVCI resort) under "Inspection of Books and Records, (1) The Master Association shall have the power and duty to open, at any reasonable time during business hours, the books and records of the Master Association for inspection by any Member or Declarant's Mortgagee upon the written demand by such Member of Declarant's Mortgagee; provided, however, that the the Master Association shall be obligated to open its books and records for inspection by a Member only if the Member requests such inspection for a purpose reasonably related to the member's interests as a Member.  The inspection may be made in person or by an agent or attorney and shall include the right to copy and make extracts.
> 
> "(2) The Board shall have the power and duty to establish reasonable rules with respect to (A) notice to be given to the custodian of records by the person desiring to make the inspection; (B) hours and days of the week when such an inspection may be made; and (C) payment of the cost of reproducing copies of documents requested by a Member of Morgagee."
> 
> I don't see how that translates to "MVCI must furnish at its expense the complete contact information for every owner to any attorney who requests such for any reason."


I know the resort in question I mentioned did release the contact info to a person then tried to retrieve it citing they should not have released it.  Most states have rules that all legal paperwork must be open by appt but I am not certain how that works with private sensitive data such as names, addresses and emails.  I can't speak to the legalities specifically for Aruba other than the limited info I've provided.


----------



## marksue

As i mentioned in a previous post we do have an attorney who has made the request of the board.  The attorney represents the concerned owners.


----------



## d19lane

*To the "Concerned Owners"*

I am certainly glad I no longer own at the Ocean Club, but being an owner at the Surf Club, this does concern me.

I hope the concerned owners truly have the “smoking gun” they claim to have but, I seriously doubt that they do. If they did, an attorney wouldn’t be needed. Just presenting the damning “evidence” to Marriott probably would cause them to fold. I’m concerned that the only thing that is going come from this is, at least, the owners paying legal fees for Marriott, the Ocean Club BOD and the concerned owners attorneys.

At worst, you may convince Marriott that they do not want to continue their relationship with the resort. I believe that would lower the value at the Surf and Ocean Clubs.

This is not a threat, so don’t take it as one but, have you considered that if you cause Marriott to leave you may be sued yourself by other owners? Please, proceed carefully.

Regards, David


----------



## Dean

d19lane said:


> I am certainly glad I no longer own at the Ocean Club, but being an owner at the Surf Club, this does concern me.
> 
> I hope the concerned owners truly have the “smoking gun” they claim to have but, I seriously doubt that they do. If they did, an attorney wouldn’t be needed. Just presenting the damning “evidence” to Marriott probably would cause them to fold. I’m concerned that the only thing that is going come from this is, at least, the owners paying legal fees for Marriott, the Ocean Club BOD and the concerned owners attorneys.
> 
> At worst, you may convince Marriott that they do not want to continue their relationship with the resort. I believe that would lower the value at the Surf and Ocean Clubs.
> 
> This is not a threat, so don’t take it as one but, have you considered that if you cause Marriott to leave you may be sued yourself by other owners? Please, proceed carefully.
> 
> Regards, David


I think all Marriott owners should have some level of concern going forward and that's true regardless of what stance one takes on this issue.  Of course the specific concerns are different if you're pro, against or neutral on this question.  As for smoking gun, I too doubt there is.  The truth is that even if everything is as some think, proving it is another matter.  Marriott did agree to paying roughly half if I understand correctly and given this is an issue with a life span of roughly 20 years for these considerations, one has to consider the past life as credit.  I know to some it's that they fell betrayed but there is no way going forward that I can see to change that.  Those that see it as a trust issue should likely move on, and frankly, should probably not be involved in timesharing going forward.


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> As i mentioned in a previous post we do have an attorney who has made the request of the board.  The attorney represents the concerned owners.



Okay, but again, what is your attorney's reaction to the BOD's response to the request?  Didn't s/he expect that Marriott would advise owners that if their contact information is released, Marriott can not be responsible for what happens with it from that point forward?


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Okay, but again, what is your attorney's reaction to the BOD's response to the request?  Didn't s/he expect that Marriott would advise owners that if their contact information is released, Marriott can not be responsible for what happens with it from that point forward?



What's all this hoopla about releasing contact information?
I seriously doubt that Allan will send us credit card applications,magazine subscriptions,nor any other such junk mail nonsense once he gets this info.
And Marriott can not be responsible for what?
They directly and/or indirectly send out more junk mail because THEY have the sacred list. I guess they are afraid of competition?
What catastrophe will come about by releasing said list?
Please clue me in.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> What's all this hoopla about releasing contact information?
> I seriously doubt that Allan will send us credit card applications,magazine subscriptions,nor any other such junk mail nonsense once he gets this info.
> And Marriott can not be responsible for what?
> They directly and/or indirectly send out more junk mail because THEY have the sacred list. I guess they are afraid of competition?
> What catastrophe will come about by releasing said list?
> Please clue me in.



I wonder if you'd be so cavalier about your contact information being released by any other company with which you do business?  In this situation it benefits you for MVCI to release your fellow owners' information, so sure, you say they should just go right ahead and do it.  But there are privacy laws in place that may prevent them from doing so without disclosure, and those same privacy laws can and do protect you in other business dealings.

And what about the owners who do not believe that it would benefit them (a couple have already posted here) - do you think that the protections afforded to them by the privacy laws should be simply ignored in order to further your agenda?

As an MVCI owner I don't want my contact information released to any other owner without notifying me first.  If given the option to not have my info released, I'd choose that option every time.

I know that in this situation you folks think that the AOC owners who have not signed on to your cause have not done so because they're ignorant of "the facts" as Marksue interprets them, and you think that if they are only educated to "the facts" then they will join in heartily.  I think that's wishful thinking.  I think that they are ALL well aware of the cost increases at the resort, and that the majority of them have accepted the explanations given by Marriott/MVCI/the BOD in the myriad communications that have been distributed.  Or, at least (as you've said many times here,) they just don't care enough to become all hot and bothered over the situation.  In any event, if I was one of them and received a mailing from Marksue's attorney which contained a communication style similar to what's been posted here, without any notice at all from the BOD telling me to expect such a thing, I would be furious that my contact information was released to someone in order to further a personal crusade.

All that said, I go right back to questioning why it's necessary to take this step.  You have enough owner names to satisfy the 10% requirement for a petition to the BOD for a special meeting to recall members of the BOD.  Why not just submit the petition in its proper form?


----------



## modoaruba

At this stage in my life I am sick and tired of political correctness.
The cost of stepping on egg shells is rediculous.
Something invented by lawyers whom already made off with the loot due to some crazy lawsuits. Now laws are written to prevent more of the same.
The dictionary as we know it is in jeopardy. Can't even call anything by it's rightful name.
My life is not that interesting nor that important that by putting my name on a list will make much of a difference in changing anything.
Personally,privacy rights have gotten way out of hand. But that's another topic of discussion.
Back to our topic.
What harm would come if a letter was sent out to all the owners?
They could ignore it,they could not agree with it.or they could act on it.
Their choice.And there it ends.
But you have all those rightous politically correct people who would probably get a lawyer and sue do to emotional distress or some other BS reason.
Sorry for being so opinionated.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> At this stage in my life I am sick and tired of political correctness.
> The cost of stepping on egg shells is rediculous.
> Something invented by lawyers whom already made off with the loot due to some crazy lawsuits. Now laws are written to prevent more of the same.
> The dictionary as we know it is in jeopardy. Can't even call anything by it's rightful name.
> My life is not that interesting nor that important that by putting my name on a list will make much of a difference in changing anything.
> Personally,privacy rights have gotten way out of hand. But that's another topic of discussion.
> Back to our topic.
> What harm would come if a letter was sent out to all the owners?
> They could ignore it,they could not agree with it.or they could act on it.
> Their choice.And there it ends.
> But you have all those rightous politically correct people who would probably get a lawyer and sue do to emotional distress or some other BS reason.
> Sorry for being so opinionated.



Don't be sorry - everybody's entitled to have opinions.   I agree with you about how crazy the world is with prior lawsuits making it difficult for any business to take the smallest baby steps without worrying about somebody crying "I'll sue!"

Isn't that how this whole thing started, anyway?   

I also agree with you that there's no harm in all of the owners reading all of the opinions about what's been happening at your resort.  (Don't you ever wonder how many have seen this thread and not commented?)  But just as Marriott/MVCI/the BOD has to follow laws and contractual obligations, so do the owners.  There's a right way to get the word out beyond online communication, but as we're learning it takes quite a bit more effort to figure out that way.


----------



## modoaruba

Just noticed that this is my 100th post.
A centurian! Wow!
That's all I have to say.
So now on with the show.


----------



## lovearuba

SueDonJ said:


> Don't be sorry - everybody's entitled to have opinions.  I agree with you about how crazy the world is with prior lawsuits making it difficult for any business to take the smallest baby steps without worrying about somebody crying "I'll sue!"
> 
> Isn't that how this whole thing started, anyway?
> 
> I also agree with you that there's no harm in all of the owners reading all of the opinions about what's been happening at your resort. (Don't you ever wonder how many have seen this thread and not commented?) But just as Marriott/MVCI/the BOD has to follow laws and contractual obligations, so do the owners. There's a right way to get the word out beyond online communication, but as we're learning it takes quite a bit more effort to figure out that way.


 
I dont usually agree with you but I do agree that there is a lot of effort needed to be able to get the information out to the owners.  There are other efforts that are being worked on that will help that cause.  I read the letter asking for my permission to release my information and the underlying tone was threatening, it gave you the impression that Allan was going to send your private information out.  It is really sad since my credit card information was given out by Marriott but when my name and address is requested on behalf of some of us owners who are entitled to it, huge barriers are thrown up to misrepresent the purpose of the request.  This is just one more delay but it will not stop the effort.


----------



## ecwinch

d19lane said:


> I am certainly glad I no longer own at the Ocean Club, but being an owner at the Surf Club, this does concern me.
> 
> I hope the concerned owners truly have the “smoking gun” they claim to have but, I seriously doubt that they do. If they did, an attorney wouldn’t be needed. Just presenting the damning “evidence” to Marriott probably would cause them to fold. I’m concerned that the only thing that is going come from this is, at least, the owners paying legal fees for Marriott, the Ocean Club BOD and the concerned owners attorneys.
> 
> At worst, you may convince Marriott that they do not want to continue their relationship with the resort. I believe that would lower the value at the Surf and Ocean Clubs.
> 
> This is not a threat, so don’t take it as one but, have you considered that if you cause Marriott to leave you may be sued yourself by other owners? Please, proceed carefully.
> 
> Regards, David



David,

These points were raised early in this discussion. To summarize the responses that were given then:

1) The strategic location of the AOC between the Surf Club and the hotel complex would make it problematic for MVCI to drop AOC

2) Even the "concerned" owners have no desire to leave Marriott

And while I am not a lawyer, I doubt that owners could be successfully sued based on the causative effect of exercising their legal rights.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> Just noticed that this is my 100th post.
> A centurian! Wow!
> That's all I have to say.
> So now on with the show.



AHA!  As one player in the "Upping my Post Count" game to another, congratulations!  Here's to many more milestones.


----------



## Zac495

ecwinch said:


> David,
> 
> These points were raised early in this discussion. To summarize the responses that were given then:
> 
> 1) The strategic location of the AOC between the Surf Club and the hotel complex would make it problematic for MVCI to drop AOC
> 
> 2) Even the "concerned" owners have no desire to leave Marriott
> 
> And while I am not a lawyer, I doubt that owners could be successfully sued based on the causative effect of exercising their legal rights.



Actually, I don't get this whole thing - but I did have the desire to leave Marriott - and sold.

I don't see how fees of almost 1700 make any sense when you can rent for just a little more than that. Sure, rent will go up. But the fees will continue to rise over the years (hopefully in a reasonable manner). I guess if you went to Aruba every year it would make sense (my buyer wants to go every year) - but for me, it was crazy to keep my unit.


----------



## d19lane

ecwinch said:


> David,
> 
> These points were raised early in this discussion. To summarize the responses that were given then:
> 
> 1) The strategic location of the AOC between the Surf Club and the hotel complex would make it problematic for MVCI to drop AOC
> 
> 2) Even the "concerned" owners have no desire to leave Marriott
> 
> And while I am not a lawyer, I doubt that owners could be successfully sued based on the causative effect of exercising their legal rights.



Eric,

1) If the property isn’t beneficial (profitable), or is causing other legal or publicity issues Marriott would/could end the management contract. Marriott is a business and there for no other reason but, to make money. Just because it is located between two other Marriott properties means nothing.

2) Not having the desire for something to happen doesn’t mean that the actions won't cause it to happen.

I'm not an attorney either but, I see news reports regularly of people being sued for many different things. I would imagine that if someone does something to cause a financial hardship on someone else then the person suffering the hardship has the "legal right" to try and recover the loss through the court system.

David


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> I dont usually agree with you but I do agree that there is a lot of effort needed to be able to get the information out to the owners.  There are other efforts that are being worked on that will help that cause.  I read the letter asking for my permission to release my information and the underlying tone was threatening, it gave you the impression that Allan was going to send your private information out.  It is really sad since my credit card information was given out by Marriott but when my name and address is requested on behalf of some of us owners who are entitled to it, huge barriers are thrown up to misrepresent the purpose of the request.  This is just one more delay but it will not stop the effort.



Hmmm ... If the letter asking for the owners' contact information was signed and submitted by an attorney, why would the response to it name Allan as the person who would be given an opportunity to misuse the information?

Why/when did Marriott give out your credit card information?


----------



## SueDonJ

Zac495 said:


> Actually, I don't get this whole thing - but I did have the desire to leave Marriott - and sold.
> 
> I don't see how fees of almost 1700 make any sense when you can rent for just a little more than that. Sure, rent will go up. But the fees will continue to rise over the years (hopefully in a reasonable manner). I guess if you went to Aruba every year it would make sense (my buyer wants to go every year) - but for me, it was crazy to keep my unit.



I think what is meant by "even the 'concerned' owners have no desire to leave Marriott" is that this group wants AOC to remain an MVCI resort - they don't want their resort to lose the Marriott brand name.  Although some individual owners have certainly made the same decision you've made, that ownership at AOC no longer makes sense for them.

I'm with you, though, in that I don't get the whole thing.  If this group will only be satisfied with an AOC that runs counter-productive to the MVCI model (which is what they're asking for with things like a more responsive BOD, lease fees for certain common and developer areas, etc.,) then they will never be happy with an AOC that remains under the MVCI umbrella.  MVCI is not going to change its model to suit only this minority ownership group at this one resort.


----------



## SueDonJ

d19lane said:


> ... 2) Not having the desire for something to happen doesn’t mean that the actions won't cause it to happen. ...



Exactly.  Several folks throughout this thread have warned against unintended consequences but the warnings don't seem to have made any impact in the crusade.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Exactly.  Several folks throughout this thread have warned against unintended consequences but the warnings don't seem to have made any impact in the crusade.



But the warnings are speculative at best on both ends.
Until there is a direct quote from Marriott it's moot.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> But the warnings are speculative at best on both ends.
> Until there is a direct quote from Marriott it's moot.



But what if the only direct quote ever issued is in the form of press release such as, "Today Marriott Vacation Club International announced plans to sever its developer relationship with the Aruba Ocean Club resort ...?"

The warnings may be moot, but they're certainly worth at least considering.


----------



## ecwinch

d19lane said:


> Eric,
> 
> 1) If the property isn’t beneficial (profitable), or is causing other legal or publicity issues Marriott would/could end the management contract. Marriott is a business and there for no other reason but, to make money. Just because it is located between two other Marriott properties means nothing.
> 
> 2) Not having the desire for something to happen doesn’t mean that the actions won't cause it to happen.
> 
> I'm not an attorney either but, I see news reports regularly of people being sued for many different things. I would imagine that if someone does something to cause a financial hardship on someone else then the person suffering the hardship has the "legal right" to try and recover the loss through the court system.
> 
> David



David,

I agree with you, as I did when I made similar comments early in this thread. I was just trying to provide a recap of the previous discussion as no one else seemed to be answering your post.

And you can be sued for anything in the US. Successfully sued is another thing entirely. 

Just because my actions caused you financial hardship is, not solely onto itself, grounds for suit.

Otherwise I would be able to sue any person who exercised their legal rights to the extent that it caused financial hardship to me. So if someone slips and falls at the resort pool, and then sues and causes my m/f to go up, can I sue them then?


----------



## ecwinch

Zac495 said:


> Actually, I don't get this whole thing - but I did have the desire to leave Marriott - and sold.
> 
> I don't see how fees of almost 1700 make any sense when you can rent for just a little more than that. Sure, rent will go up. But the fees will continue to rise over the years (hopefully in a reasonable manner). I guess if you went to Aruba every year it would make sense (my buyer wants to go every year) - but for me, it was crazy to keep my unit.



I was referring to the statements made by the proponent of this crusade, that he had no desire to see MVCI no longer manage AOC.

Most of the other concerned owners are just extras in a multi-act play. Mark and Allan have all the lines in the script.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> But what if the only direct quote ever issued is in the form of press release such as, "Today Marriott Vacation Club International announced plans to sever its developer relationship with the Aruba Ocean Club resort ...?"
> 
> The warnings may be moot, but they're certainly worth at least considering.



With all due respect,I doubt Marriott would do such a thing without prior notifications to all the owners.
At that time,if it does happen that Marriott is considering a breakaway,the majority of owners would probably (me being speculative) stop the movement because I believe that we all bought in because of the Marriott name.


----------



## lovearuba

*nothing changed*



ecwinch said:


> I was referring to the statements made by the proponent of this crusade, that he had no desire to see MVCI no longer manage AOC.
> 
> Most of the other concerned owners are just extras in a multi-act play. Mark and Allan have all the lines in the script.


 
Still insulting people


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> With all due respect,I doubt Marriott would do such a thing without prior notifications to all the owners.
> At that time,if it does happen that Marriott is considering a breakaway,the majority of owners would probably (me being speculative) stop the movement because I believe that we all bought in because of the Marriott name.



I agree that the majority AOC owners would opt to continue with MVCI as the management company.  And you could very well be correct about how a separation would be announced, because I have no idea how it would happen if Marriott no longer considers its management agreement with AOC to be beneficial.  I guess I'm more leery of pushing MVCI to a point of no return than this "concerned owners" group appears to be.

Earlier in this thread somebody brought up the dissolution between MVCI and certain other resorts - maybe that history is worth looking at.


----------



## Dean

ecwinch said:


> David,
> 
> These points were raised early in this discussion. To summarize the responses that were given then:
> 
> 1) The strategic location of the AOC between the Surf Club and the hotel complex would make it problematic for MVCI to drop AOC
> 
> 2) Even the "concerned" owners have no desire to leave Marriott
> 
> And while I am not a lawyer, I doubt that owners could be successfully sued based on the causative effect of exercising their legal rights.


While I doubt Marriott and this resort will part, don't believe for a second that Marriott wouldn't walk away if the need arose.  Marriott has walked away from other deals including several that some said would never happen.  They came very close for Beach Place fairly recently and divided up Vail when some said they couldn't legally do so.  I doubt that there are many owners that want to cont to own but leave Marriott but there may be a few.  It would seem to be a great time to buy there fairly cheaply.  Eric, I would somewhat disagree with you on the civil action options.  IMO, any BOD member directly responsible for this action would be at risk and likely not covered by Directors Insurance.  Any principle person bringing a complaint would be at risk as well.  IMO, the risk comes more from a counter suit by Marriott and/or the resort itself and BOD than from other owners but both are possible.  There are 2 $$$ risks to the resort.  One is the direct costs of defending this issue plus what they could lose in court and the other is if Marriott walks away from what they agreed to pay already.  Certainly from Marriott's standpoint, I'd take the compromise off the table for now and go back to having only the owners fund this until I saw what was going to happen in the legal arena.  IMO, the likely outcome is somewhat predictable.  Marriott will likely up their ante to about 60-70% but not cover any legal fees for the other side.  The resort and owners will still have a net loss and the complainants will still be out more than they take in (my prediction which I also made way back).


----------



## ecwinch

Dean said:


> Eric, I would somewhat disagree with you on the civil action options.  IMO, any BOD member directly responsible for this action would be at risk and likely not covered by Directors Insurance.  Any principle person bringing a complaint would be at risk as well.  IMO, the risk comes more from a counter suit by Marriott and/or the resort itself and BOD than from other owners but both are possible.



The comment was made in regard to MarkSue's potential liability to other owners if MVCI dropped AOC due to his efforts to obtain the mailing list and unseat the BoD i.e. the "trouble" he is causing. 

Sorry I do not think that Mark is at risk in that regard. What would be the specific legal basis or precedent for that action? 

I would agree if you want to extend your speculation to Allan, in particular his actions while a seated member of the BoD.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Still insulting people



I recognize that the truth might be insulting to some. 

But in the absence of more detailed information, I stand by my comment. This whole crusade has been driven by the dedication of one individual with the coaching of another. On balance I think my statement is a fair characterization of the situation.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> With all due respect,I doubt Marriott would do such a thing without prior notifications to all the owners.
> At that time,if it does happen that Marriott is considering a breakaway,the majority of owners would probably (me being speculative) stop the movement because I believe that we all bought in because of the Marriott name.



Marriott has dropped resorts in the past. My resort - HarbourPoint at HHI came very close to that point. It becomes as simple as MVCI not renewing the mgt contract, or the BoD not agreeing to a new contract. If the new contract had not been agreed to by the HP BoD, there would have been little recourse that owners would have had at that point. There is no lifetime commitment by MVCI that they will manage any of the resorts in the system.

By and large I think we are past that point with AOC, but I doubt that MVCI would want to continue to manage a resort where an anti-MVCI BoD is operating. 

And I think there was a real danger at one point in time of that happening.


----------



## Dean

ecwinch said:


> Sorry I do not think that Mark is at risk in that regard. What would be the specific legal basis or precedent for that action?


I do think active participants have some risk but as I said, more from Marriott than the other members though both to a degree.  Unfortunately I don't know Dutch law well enough to evaluate the risk from that regard.  



ecwinch said:


> Marriott has dropped resorts in the past. My resort - HarbourPoint at HHI came very close to that point.


To be honest, I think HP and possibly SP days are number as is the remainder of Vail.  I'd guess HP will make it through one more full contract cycle, maybe 7-8 years or so roughly.  I sold my week there accordingly.  Marriott has dropped 9 resorts to date total if you count the separate components of Vail individually and the Sea Pines (Saturday Villas) as one.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> Marriott has dropped resorts in the past. My resort - HarbourPoint at HHI came very close to that point. It becomes as simple as MVCI not renewing the mgt contract, or the BoD not agreeing to a new contract. If the new contract had not been agreed to by the HP BoD, there would have been little recourse that owners would have had at that point. There is no lifetime commitment by MVCI that they will manage any of the resorts in the system.
> 
> By and large I think we are past that point with AOC, but I doubt that MVCI would want to continue to manage a resort where an anti-MVCI BoD is operating.
> 
> And I think there was a real danger at one point in time of that happening.



I was not aware of this history.
Thanks for that info.
When I was at the AOC three weeks ago not one person ever mentioned any dissatisfaction with Marriott. It was business as usual.
Do you know off hand if the majority of owners wanted Marriott out of the resorts they were managing?

'


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> I was not aware of this history.
> Thanks for that info.
> When I was at the AOC three weeks ago not one person ever mentioned any dissatisfaction with Marriott. It was business as usual.
> Do you know off hand if the majority of owners wanted Marriott out of the resorts they were managing?
> 
> '



Someone else can chime in here, but I think the Vail resorts were the only ones I am aware of where the BoD decided not to continue their MVCI affiliation. And maybe Longboat Key in FL.

I also do not recall where MVCI has ever dropped a resort that they built from the ground up. 

The drops to date have been older resorts that MVCI acquired early in their timeshare business - Longboat Key in FL, Night Heron/Swallowtail/SpiceBush in HHI, Paradise Island Beach Club in the Bahamas and two (?3) Streamside buildings at Vail resorts.


----------



## qlaval

ecwinch said:


> I recognize that the truth might be insulting to some.
> 
> But in the absence of more detailed information, I stand by my comment...



Sorry Eric but are you saying that based on a lack of detailed information you able were to find the truth?

Isn't the truth based on all the facts rather then perception?


----------



## ecwinch

qlaval said:


> Sorry Eric but are you saying that based on a lack of detailed information you able to find the truth?
> 
> Isn't the truth based on all the facts rather then perception?



I have no lack of detailed information....  but nice attempt to try to turn my words around. Very similar to what the crusade has done with every communication from the AOC Board. Mark has taught you well.

Are you representing that Mark and Allan are not the main proponents of this crusade?

Who else has done significantly more then post here, get some signatures, talk to their friends, and send angry letters? And I mean real active steps, not passive activity.

Please step forward....


----------



## qlaval

ecwinch said:


> I have no lack of detailed information....  but nice attempt to try to turn my words around. Very similar to what the crusade has done with every communication from the AOC Board. Mark has taught you well.
> 
> Are you representing that Mark and Allan are not the main proponents of this crusade?....



Lol...

No... it's just that I don't think that spectators can pretend to hold the truth...


----------



## ecwinch

qlaval said:


> Lol...
> 
> No... it's just that I don't think that spectators can pretend to hold the truth...



As usual, the crusaders use rhetoric rather fact to respond.

Your right. Mark is not the leader of this crusade. I have my facts wrong.

lol...


----------



## qlaval

ecwinch said:


> As usual, the crusaders use rhetoric rather fact to respond....



I surrender... you've got me I'm the secret number 3... :hysterical:


----------



## marksue

ecwinch said:


> Your right. Mark is not the leader of this crusade. I have my facts wrong.
> 
> lol...



You do have your facts wrong.  I am not the leader.  You just made an assumption.  I may have started this thread, but as the group grew there were others that had ideas and thoughts and we work together. We discuss ideas and agree on approach to take.


----------



## marksue

*Letter sent to all Concerned Owners*

Dear Owner - I have been contacted by numerous Owners today regarding a letter sent out from Marriott and the Board of the AOC regarding a request from an Owner seeking Owner contact information.  Do not be fooled by this scare tactic from Marriott.  

This request has been made by me on behalf of the concerned Owners group after the Board and Marriott have refused to share information to all Owners about our concerns and the condition of our Building.   Our attorney has made it very clear that the only purpose for the information is to contact all Owners regarding serious issues pertaining to the AOC..  It will not be used  by "telemarketers" as suggested by the Board.  As a matter of fact it seems that the only telemarketer currently who has complete use of our list is that of Marriott who continue to solicit Owners for new purchases etc.

We now have over 1000 Owners supporting our efforts whose names were gathered one by one on the Beach and once we have the ability to contact all Owners (which Marriott and the Board are afraid of) I am confident we will be able to call for a special meeting of Owners to address our concerns.

We are spending over 14 million dollars currently and we hope to have a beautiful resort in the next two years, but after you have the ability to review our own consultants reports, (which the Board has refused to share with Owners and which we have spent over $70,000 for) you might be concerned as to why our building's conditions were never disclosed to us and why we continue to pay to make our building a 1st class resort?.  That is what we purchased.

Just ask yourselves why is the Board and Marriott so afraid of what we want to share with all Owners?  The Board is using Owner funds to try to stop our legal team who will be seeking a fair and reasonable response from our developer,Marriott for the repair costs incurred by Owners.

I hope that you will allow for your contact information be used to keep all Owners informed.  We will soon have our own web site for concerned Owners ready very soon.  

If you have any questions, please call me or email me at c20854@aol.com.

Thank You,  Allan Cohen
Past President - AOC


----------



## d19lane

ecwinch said:


> David,
> 
> I agree with you, as I did when I made similar comments early in this thread. I was just trying to provide a recap of the previous discussion as no one else seemed to be answering your post.
> 
> And you can be sued for anything in the US. Successfully sued is another thing entirely.
> 
> Just because my actions caused you financial hardship is, not solely onto itself, grounds for suit.
> 
> Otherwise I would be able to sue any person who exercised their legal rights to the extent that it caused financial hardship to me. So if someone slips and falls at the resort pool, and then sues and causes my m/f to go up, can I sue them then?



Eric,

Your example likely wouldn’t be successful in court but, it might be if the person was found to be perpetrating insurance fraud; but even then, the insurance company would likely sue the individual.

However, someone’s actions which can be reasonably foreseen to cause someone else a hardship could prevail in court. As reported in this thread, Marriott has dissolved it’s management relationship with at least one other resort and therefore it can be reasonably foreseen that they could decide to do it again. It has also been theorized in this thread that if Marriott did leave the Ocean Club the values of the timeshares would likely be reduced…a reasonable assumption. I’m not claiming it would prevail in court, but it might.

We could debate a million “what ifs” but, it would be a waste of time. My only intent in my original post was to ask for careful consideration of unintended consequences.

Regards, David


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> Dear Owner - I have been contacted by numerous Owners today regarding a letter sent out from Marriott and the Board of the AOC regarding a request from an Owner seeking Owner contact information.  Do not be fooled by this scare tactic from Marriott.
> 
> This request has been made by me on behalf of the concerned Owners group after the Board and Marriott have refused to share information to all Owners about our concerns and the condition of our Building.   Our attorney has made it very clear that the only purpose for the information is to contact all Owners regarding serious issues pertaining to the AOC..  It will not be used  by "telemarketers" as suggested by the Board.  As a matter of fact it seems that the only telemarketer currently who has complete use of our list is that of Marriott who continue to solicit Owners for new purchases etc.
> 
> We now have over 1000 Owners supporting our efforts whose names were gathered one by one on the Beach and once we have the ability to contact all Owners (which Marriott and the Board are afraid of) I am confident we will be able to call for a special meeting of Owners to address our concerns.
> 
> *We are spending over 14 million dollars currently and we hope to have a beautiful resort in the next two years, but after you have the ability to review our own consultants reports, (which the Board has refused to share with Owners and which we have spent over $70,000 for) you might be concerned as to why our building's conditions were never disclosed to us and why we continue to pay to make our building a 1st class resort?.  That is what we purchased.*
> 
> Just ask yourselves why is the Board and Marriott so afraid of what we want to share with all Owners?  The Board is using Owner funds to try to stop our legal team who will be seeking a fair and reasonable response from our developer,Marriott for the repair costs incurred by Owners.
> 
> I hope that you will allow for your contact information be used to keep all Owners informed.  We will soon have our own web site for concerned Owners ready very soon.
> 
> If you have any questions, please call me or email me at c20854@aol.com.
> 
> Thank You,  Allan Cohen
> Past President - AOC



And herein is the reason why Allan may be personally at risk legally.  As I understand it, the $70,000 report was commissioned by the BOD over which Allan presided.  That board initially considered a lawsuit against Marriott because of structural concerns with the property, but that consideration was eventually resolved outside of a court action between Marriott and the BOD.  Now that Allan is no longer a member of the BOD that accepted by majority rule that resolution, however, he is revisiting the issue and releasing what may be confidential BOD business, [edit] information that is most certainly in his hands as a result of the privileges he enjoyed as a member of that BOD.

In a previous post Marksue stated, "Nothing wrong with an insider sharing what he knew that impacted the owners and making suggestions on how to approach the issues."  It's not exactly the same situation, but I'm sure Martha Stewart could provide some instruction about what _doesn't_ constitute proper legal "insider" actions.

And finally, this message above from Allan Cohen by way of Marksue once again seems to prove that an attorney has not been retained to completely handle these issues for the "concerned owners."  Rather, an attorney (probably an AOC owner?) is allowing his/her name to be used for letter-writing purposes, but the related actions still remain in less-than-legally-competent hands.  I will never understand that omission, which is directly responsible for the possible risk assumed by Allan and possibly others.


----------



## Luckybee

SueDonJ said:


> And finally, this message above from Allan Cohen by way of Marksue once again seems to prove that an attorney has not been retained to completely handle these issues for the "concerned owners."  Rather, an attorney (probably an AOC owner?) is allowing his/her name to be used for letter-writing purposes, but the related actions still remain in less-than-legally-competent hands.  I will never understand that omission, which is directly responsible for the possible risk assumed by Allan and possibly others.



And herein is the reason I try(not always successfully I must admit) to avoid this thread. We have those who are spectators passing on info that is simply incorrect. There are Aruban attorneys involved for both sides. Simply because the information regarding the attorney isnt being passed on to the cheering squad  doesnt mean it isnt happening! As I said before neither Mark, Allan or anyone else is under no obligation to provide non owners with answers to questions .


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> I was not aware of this history.
> Thanks for that info.
> When I was at the AOC three weeks ago not one person ever mentioned any dissatisfaction with Marriott. It was business as usual.
> Do you know off hand if the majority of owners wanted Marriott out of the resorts they were managing?'




Modo, these old threads about Marriott dissolutions come up with a TUG search of "Spicebush Swallowtail":

How many TS properties has Marriott walked away from?
Streamside: Has The Aspen Board Gone Crazy?
Did Anyone See This?

And about your vacation, I'm glad you had the great time that you were hoping for.  But did you not have the same experience as Luckybee posted about friends recently, "... that this is a constant discussion round the pool , beach, and yes towel hut ...?"


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Modo, these old threads about Marriott dissolutions come up with a TUG search of "Spicebush Swallowtail":
> 
> How many TS properties has Marriott walked away from?
> Streamside: Has The Aspen Board Gone Crazy?
> Did Anyone See This?
> 
> And about your vacation, I'm glad you had the great time that you were hoping for.  But did you not have the same experience as Luckybee posted about friends recently, "... that this is a constant discussion round the pool , beach, and yes towel hut ...?"



As I have said before, not one person on the beach,pool,or at any part of the resort ever approached the subject nor did I overhear anybody discuss the subject.
Good time had by all was more appropriate.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> And herein is the reason I try(not always successfully I must admit) to avoid this thread. We have those who are spectators passing on info that is simply incorrect. There are Aruban attorneys involved for both sides. Simply because the information regarding the attorney isnt being passed on to the cheering squad  doesnt mean it isnt happening! As I said before neither Mark, Allan or anyone else is under no obligation to provide non owners with answers to questions .



I'm not "passing on" any information, correct or incorrect.  Or did you conveniently miss the "seems to prove" that I deliberately placed in order to let the reader know that I'm guessing at something?  Of course the guessing is only necessary because once again a post full of innuendo and missing key facts has been placed here, but that's only okay for certain folks and not others.

You and I have discussed already what types of postings here would probably be acceptable to a competent attorney - the types offered by Marksue and Allan do not qualify.  By way of deductive reasoning, then, only one of two conclusions can be reached - either a qualified attorney has not been retained, thus Marksue and Allan suffer no posting contraints; or an incompetent attorney has been retained.  Neither scenario is ideal.


----------



## lovearuba

SueDonJ said:


> I'm not "passing on" any information, correct or incorrect. Or did you conveniently miss the "seems to prove" that I deliberately placed in order to let the reader know that I'm guessing at something? Of course the guessing is only necessary because once again a post full of innuendo and missing key facts has been placed here, but that's only okay for certain folks and not others.
> 
> You and I have discussed already what types of postings here would probably be acceptable to a competent attorney - the types offered by Marksue and Allan do not qualify. By way of deductive reasoning, then, only one of two conclusions can be reached - either a qualified attorney has not been retained, thus Marksue and Allan suffer no posting contraints; or an incompetent attorney has been retained. Neither scenario is ideal.


 
Sounds like you think you are competent to judge the credentials of people you dont know.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> Sounds like you think you are competent to judge the credentials of people you dont know.



Oh honestly.  Anybody who's had any reason for contact with attorneys is able to judge whether or not they appear to be competent in their field.  I've had a fair amount of contact, including employment for ten years, and can say with some certainty what a competent attorney would advise right out of the gate to a client who is considering a lawsuit - first rule, do nothing which could potentially harm or jeopardize your case.  We're all certainly capable of realizing that posting innuendo, half-truths, misconceptions and unsubstantiated rumors about your adversary to an internet message board probably falls under that umbrella.

Aside from that, I wasn't alone in the previous discussion about the probable tactics of civil suit attorneys.  Did you, or do you plan to, make the same comment above to the others involved?


----------



## Luckybee

Lovearuba

As you and I have discussed...sometimes it is simply better to ignore ....lol...we're doing it again


----------



## ecwinch

I just continue to find it amusing that one sides posts facts, logic, deductive reasoning, and personal experiences; and from the other side you hear big raspberry sounds.

Beyond the occassional soliloquy from Mark, I think this discussion has run it's course.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> I was not aware of this history.
> Thanks for that info.
> When I was at the AOC three weeks ago not one person ever mentioned any dissatisfaction with Marriott. It was business as usual.
> Do you know off hand if the majority of owners wanted Marriott out of the resorts they were managing?
> 
> '


I doubt anyone other than a few well placed Marriott execs and POSSIBLY, the BOD and management staff at the given resorts can truly know for certain.  Adding up 2 plus 2 though, I'd venture that those that have recently been dropped (Vail components, SV, SB, ST, Paradise Island and Longboat bay are the ones I've known enough about to formulate any opinion on this matter.  Barbados and Loon Mountain were before my time.  None of those dropped were built by Marriott but there were some issues with all of them.  Take SB and ST for example.  By reports, Marriott gave them a list of expectations to cont to be in the fold, they complied with those demands, and Marriott still dropped them.  At least that's some people's take on it but like here, it becomes a he said/she said issue.  Vail was somewhat similar other than there was a major rift between those that had owned at the resorts pre Marriott and didn't want to spend the money that would have been required to meet Marriott's demands.  There was also a difference of philosophy between Marriott and Longboat BOD/owners plus Marriott likely should never have been involved there.  I think that only leaves HP and Monarch that Marriott didn't actually build and possibly one segment of Vail that remain.  Some have held that item (build by Marriott) as a major difference in what Marriott would do on this subject, namely, whether they'd drop resorts going forward or not.  HB still has a pretty solid core of owners that owned pre Marriott and would be just as happy without them.  OTOH, there were many that bought with the intent of trading and using the internal Marriott trading preference, that's especially true for SB/ST and many of those weeks were sold directly by Marriott.  My opinion is that being Marriott built won't be enough to save Sunset Pointe and maybe not even Heritage, Harbour Club and possibly Monarch long term.

It's interesting that early on Marriott offered a replacement week at a different resort that would cont in the system to those that had bought from Marriott but as things went along, this option ceased to exist.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> You do have your facts wrong.  I am not the leader.  You just made an assumption.  I may have started this thread, but as the group grew there were others that had ideas and thoughts and we work together. We discuss ideas and agree on approach to take.



You are right, I should have said Allan. My mistake.


----------



## modoaruba

From October 1,2008 and 1,700+ posts,  WHERETHEHECKAWEES?


----------



## ecwinch

Dean said:


> I doubt anyone other than a few well placed Marriott execs and POSSIBLY, the BOD and management staff at the given resorts can truly know for certain.  Adding up 2 plus 2 though, I'd venture that those that have recently been dropped (Vail components, SV, SB, ST, Paradise Island and Longboat bay are the ones I've known enough about to formulate any opinion on this matter.  Barbados and Loon Mountain were before my time.  None of those dropped were built by Marriott but there were some issues with all of them.  Take SB and ST for example.  By reports, Marriott gave them a list of expectations to cont to be in the fold, they complied with those demands, and Marriott still dropped them.  At least that's some people's take on it but like here, it becomes a he said/she said issue.  Vail was somewhat similar other than there was a major rift between those that had owned at the resorts pre Marriott and didn't want to spend the money that would have been required to meet Marriott's demands.  There was also a difference of philosophy between Marriott and Longboat BOD/owners plus Marriott likely should never have been involved there.  I think that only leaves HP and Monarch that Marriott didn't actually build and possibly one segment of Vail that remain.  Some have held that item (build by Marriott) as a major difference in what Marriott would do on this subject, namely, whether they'd drop resorts going forward or not.  HB still has a pretty solid core of owners that owned pre Marriott and would be just as happy without them.  OTOH, there were many that bought with the intent of trading and using the internal Marriott trading preference, that's especially true for SB/ST and many of those weeks were sold directly by Marriott.  My opinion is that being Marriott built won't be enough to save Sunset Pointe and maybe not even Heritage, Harbour Club and possibly Monarch long term.
> 
> It's interesting that early on Marriott offered a replacement week at a different resort that would cont in the system to those that had bought from Marriott but as things went along, this option ceased to exist.



MVCI is a business. No reasonable business person walks away from a profitable business without a reason for doing so. The profit margin for MVCI is locked in by contract, and MVCI will continue to manage these resorts as long as they conform to MVCI's business model. Those standards have evolved over time, and the resorts will have continue to evolve also if they want to remain in the MVCI family.

Resorts that cannot or do not want to, will drop out. It is all about MVCI maintaining their brand. MVCI built is only a factor to the extent that the resort likely already meets the minimum standards for today. 

In 10 years, the standard could be that every resort have a on-site spa or a elaborate pool complex. It all goes to the Marriott brand having value by ensuring a certain level of expectations is met when staying at the properties that bear their name.

If MVCI had not dropped the resorts in HHI, people would be complaining about how the resort did not seem like a Marriott. It would weaken the brand.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> From October 1,2008 and 1,700+ posts,  WHERETHEHECKAWEES?



We're exactly where we started.  The main players in the "concerned owners" group are posting just enough misinformation to rile up and recruit AOC owners in numbers hopefully large enough to force Marriott/MVCI/the BOD to conform to their idea of how the resort should be maintained and how it should be run, regardless of the contractual stipulations; Marriott/MVCI/the BOD is steadfastly (and easily, it appears) deflecting every inept action attempted by the "concerned owners" group; several AOC owners are voicing their tempered support here in the hope that they will be able to continue to enjoy their beloved resort; several interested MVCI-but-not-AOC owners are participating in the "what-if" ongoing discussion; several decidedly not-in-favor-of-the-"concerned owners"-group's-actions AOC owners are also adding their opinions into the mix; all of us who are posting are getting an education AND making headway in the ever-popular Upping My Post Count game; and, this thread is still being reviewed many times every day.


----------



## ecwinch

Like Sue I am getting an education into the conspiracy theorist mindset...

up 150.... must be slow going with the Pictures of the Day... :whoopie:


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> Like Sue I am getting an education into the conspiracy theorist mindset...
> 
> up 150.... must be slow going with the Pictures of the Day... :whoopie:



If the education is up to par....

who's in the grassy knoll?


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> If the education is up to par....
> 
> who's in the grassy knoll?



I am betting Dirk was the spotter, and Frank the triggerman... with maybe Cliff as lookout.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> If the education is up to par....
> 
> who's in the grassy knoll?



The puppet handlers for Frank Knox, of course.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> I am betting Dirk was the spotter, and Frank the triggerman... with maybe Cliff as lookout.



Don't be silly.  The handlers are expendable.

Oh wait, the puppet board members are supposed to be interchangeable too, right?

Well, there goes my theory.


----------



## Dean

ecwinch said:


> MVCI is a business. No reasonable business person walks away from a profitable business without a reason for doing so. The profit margin for MVCI is locked in by contract, and MVCI will continue to manage these resorts as long as they conform to MVCI's business model. Those standards have evolved over time, and the resorts will have continue to evolve also if they want to remain in the MVCI family.
> 
> Resorts that cannot or do not want to, will drop out. It is all about MVCI maintaining their brand. MVCI built is only a factor to the extent that the resort likely already meets the minimum standards for today.
> 
> In 10 years, the standard could be that every resort have a on-site spa or a elaborate pool complex. It all goes to the Marriott brand having value by ensuring a certain level of expectations is met when staying at the properties that bear their name.
> 
> If MVCI had not dropped the resorts in HHI, people would be complaining about how the resort did not seem like a Marriott. It would weaken the brand.


Agreed, the question is the reason and how much importance a given item of profit is.  For MVCI, in these issues, the reputation and brand character was more important than the profit.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> I am betting Dirk was the spotter, and Frank the triggerman... with maybe Cliff as lookout.



So to follow through,the lone gunman in the depository ( AKA AOC Oceanfront Villa) is none other than.......?


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> Don't be silly.  The handlers are expendable.
> 
> Oh wait, the puppet board members are supposed to be interchangeable too, right?
> 
> Well, there goes my theory.



You are going to need to retake Conspiracy Theory 101. It is the puppets that are expendable, that is why you have handlers.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> So to follow through,the lone gunman in the depository ( AKA AOC Oceanfront Villa) is none other than.......?



Wait... I want to change my answer.

Frank is the fall guy for all this. He is the lone gunman. I think I read he was a BoD president for Hilton for a while.

It is Dirk and Bill Marriott (the handlers) on the grassy knoll.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> Wait... I want to change my answer.
> 
> Frank is the fall guy for all this. He is the lone gunman. I think I read he was a BoD president for Hilton for a while.
> 
> It is Dirk and Bill Marriott (the handlers) on the grassy knoll.



By jove I think you got it.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> You are going to need to retake Conspiracy Theory 101. It is the puppets that are expendable, that is why you have handlers.



I will never understand Conspiracy Theories, never!  It's hopeless.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> By jove I think you got it.



FINALLY! The 1700+ post mark, and finally someone admits I got something in this thread right.

Well I can see that my work here is done......


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> FINALLY! The 1700+ post mark, and finally someone admits I got something in this thread right.
> 
> Well I can see that my work here is done......



Excellent.  Now the rest of us stand a chance in The Game.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> I will never understand Conspiracy Theories, never!  It's hopeless.



Marriott sells villas at the AOC with nominal MFs. The price is so good that they sell out.
Slowly and purpously the MFs increase each year.
At a time when the economy is at a lull, the biggest increase in MFs occur.
This is done purpously again inorder to flood the market with sellers.
Since there are too many units for sale,many owners are stuck with their units.
Either the owners ante up or go to foreclosure.
This whole plan was in the works from day one for the purpous of robbing the owners of their villas so they can sell to the next wave of buyers.

How's that for a conspiracy theory?


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> FINALLY! The 1700+ post mark, and finally someone admits I got something in this thread right.
> 
> Well I can see that my work here is done......



I enjoy reading your posts.
We can always change the subject..to keep you going.
Well, what do you think of them Yankees?


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> Marriott sells villas at the AOC with nominal MFs. The price is so good that they sell out.
> Slowly and purpously the MFs increase each year.
> At a time when the economy is at a lull, the biggest increase in MFs occur.
> This is done purpously again inorder to flood the market with sellers.
> Since there are too many units for sale,many owners are stuck with their units.
> Either the owners ante up or go to foreclosure.
> This whole plan was in the works from day one for the purpous of robbing the owners of their villas so they can sell to the next wave of buyers.
> 
> How's that for a conspiracy theory?



Sounds about three-quarters fleshed out - the only part you're missing is how Marriott managed to tank the economy before they increased the fees.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Marriott sells villas at the AOC with nominal MFs. The price is so good that they sell out.
> Slowly and purpously the MFs increase each year.
> At a time when the economy is at a lull, the biggest increase in MFs occur.
> This is done purpously again inorder to flood the market with sellers.
> Since there are too many units for sale,many owners are stuck with their units.
> Either the owners ante up or go to foreclosure.
> This whole plan was in the works from day one for the purpous of robbing the owners of their villas so they can sell to the next wave of buyers.
> 
> How's that for a conspiracy theory?



Thats a good one. Do you think they engineered the financial crisis also, or was that just good timing?

And the Yankees are doomed to failure as long as A-Rod is on the team. He is the baseball equivalent of the albatross.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Sounds about three-quarters fleshed out - the only part you're missing is how Marriott managed to tank the economy before they increased the fees.



They are THE secret lobbyist organization behind the congressional committee to oversee  that the Marriott issued VISA cards set limits to the card holders beyond the limits that they are able to repay.


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> Sounds about three-quarters fleshed out - the only part you're missing is how Marriott managed to tank the economy before they increased the fees.





ecwinch said:


> Thats a good one. Do you think they engineered the financial crisis also, or was that just good timing?



Would you quit copying me......


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> I enjoy reading your posts.
> We can always change the subject..to keep you going.
> Well, what do you think of them Yankees?



Oh my word, is nothing around here sacred?   

Those Dreaded Yankees have taken first place from my beloved RedSox and it's almost time to hang the "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here" sign on Fenway Park.

They say the same old thing about baseball standings as they do about the weather in New England, though:  If you don't like it, wait a minute.  Hopefully the standings will change by next weekend when we're in Baltimore to see the RedSox clobber the Orioles.  (But if New England's crappy never-ending rainy grey weather for this spring and summer is any indication, that old saying is a total lie.)


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> Thats a good one. Do you think they engineered the financial crisis also, or was that just good timing?
> 
> And the Yankees are doomed to failure as long as A-Rod is on the team. He is the baseball equivalent of the albatross.



I am not a great lover of AROD,but I have been a fan since 1958.
I think they have a great chance to go all the way this year.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> They are THE secret lobbyist organization behind the congressional committee to oversee  that the Marriott issued VISA cards set limits to the card holders beyond the limits that they are able to repay.



Now that's silly.  We all know that they formulate the limits based on how much we need to buy another week - repayment ability means nothing.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Now that's silly.  We all know that they formulate the limits based on how much we need to buy another week - repayment ability means nothing.



So you do understand conspiracy theories.You're just putting us on.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> I am not a great lover of AROD,but I have been a fan since 1958.
> I think they have a great chance to go all the way this year.



La La La La LA LA LA LA LA LA La La La La LA LA LA LA LA .....

(This is me with my fingers in my ears and making an annoying noise to drown out your blasphemy while dancing around like a five-year-old brat.)


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> La La La La LA LA LA LA LA LA La La La La LA LA LA LA LA .....
> 
> (This is me with my fingers in my ears and making an annoying noise to drown out your blasphemy while dancing around like a five-year-old brat.)



In keeping with the theme of the thread you are supposed to use the raspberry sound....


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> La La La La LA LA LA LA LA LA La La La La LA LA LA LA LA .....
> 
> (This is me with my fingers in my ears and making an annoying noise to drown out your blasphemy while dancing around like a five-year-old brat.)


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> I am not a great lover of AROD,but I have been a fan since 1958.
> I think they have a great chance to go all the way this year.



Only if they trade him or he is suspended for roids use 

He is a jinx. You think 2004 would have taught you that. The only way he gets a world series ring is at a pawn shop.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> In keeping with the theme of the thread you are supposed to use the raspberry sound....





modoaruba said:


>



Tttttthhhhhbbbbbtttttt.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> Only if they trade him or he is suspended for roids use
> 
> He is a jinx. You think 2004 would have taught you that. The only way he gets a world series ring is at a pawn shop.



HEY!  2004 had nothing to do with jinxes or curses or any other ridiculous notion.  That Greatest Comeback Ever against the Dreaded Yankees was engineered by the RedSox to play out exactly as it did.  Don't be dissin' my team.

(I've gotta admit, though, that the pawn shop line is funny.  HA.)


----------



## modoaruba

Ok! Next Subject.


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> HEY!  2004 had nothing to do with jinxes or curses or any other ridiculous notion.  That Greatest Comeback Ever against the Dreaded Yankees was engineered by the RedSox to play out exactly as it did.  Don't be dissin' my team.
> 
> (I've gotta admit, though, that the pawn shop line is funny.  HA.)



It only proved that Fake-Rod's jinx was greater than the Curse of the Bambino.

But we digress. Returning to your normally scheduled programming....


----------



## modoaruba

It's a shame that when your'e #1 you got to put up with abuse.
Just sour grapes


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> It's a shame that when your'e #1 you got to put up with abuse.
> Just sour grapes



Funny, that's what Bill says every time he catches up on the latest posts in this thread.  <ttthhhbbbttt!>

But seriously, it's not sour grapes - it's that feeling of dread in the pit of my stomach that comes from years of watching this RedSox/Yankees rivalry.  2004 and 2007 were sweet, sure, but it's reckless to underestimate the Dreaded Yankees.  And you know how sometimes baseball isn't at all about what happens on the field but rather what destiny allows?  Well, as good as my team looks and as bad as your team looks on paper, something this year just does not feel right.

Besides all that, how can anybody begrudge a winning season for Derek Jeter?  He's exactly what a baseball player should be.


----------



## lovearuba

Can we be respectful and stick to the topic.  I work next door to Fenway Park and have heard enough.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> Can we be respectful and stick to the topic.  I work next door to Fenway Park and have heard enough.



I promise - as soon as something is posted that brings the topic back around, I will get right on it.

But I've just gotta say first, how lucky are you with your front row seat to see all the stuff happening outside the park like lineups for parade formations and spring training bus/equipment truck convoys?  Imagine being right there and able to jump right into the mix on a moment's notice of something involving our beloved team! I am jealous as all get-out.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> Marriott sells villas at the AOC with nominal MFs. The price is so good that they sell out.
> Slowly and purpously the MFs increase each year.
> At a time when the economy is at a lull, the biggest increase in MFs occur.
> This is done purpously again inorder to flood the market with sellers.
> Since there are too many units for sale,many owners are stuck with their units.
> Either the owners ante up or go to foreclosure.
> This whole plan was in the works from day one for the purpous of robbing the owners of their villas so they can sell to the next wave of buyers.
> 
> How's that for a conspiracy theory?


Pretty far out there but in keeping with this thread in general.


----------



## dioxide45

modoaruba said:


> Marriott sells villas at the AOC with nominal MFs. The price is so good that they sell out.
> Slowly and purpously the MFs increase each year.
> At a time when the economy is at a lull, the biggest increase in MFs occur.
> This is done purpously again inorder to flood the market with sellers.
> Since there are too many units for sale,many owners are stuck with their units.
> Either the owners ante up or go to foreclosure.
> This whole plan was in the works from day one for the purpous of robbing the owners of their villas so they can sell to the next wave of buyers.
> 
> How's that for a conspiracy theory?



Marriott can't sell the inventory that they have, let alone taking on more inventory. See ROFR threads. This theory doesn't pass the test.


----------



## ecwinch

Someone always has to ruin the idle speculation with facts....


----------



## modoaruba

*conspiricy theory part 2*



dioxide45 said:


> Marriott can't sell the inventory that they have, let alone taking on more inventory. See ROFR threads. This theory doesn't pass the test.



Knowing that they cannot sell the villas due to the high price and increase in MFs,Marriott increases the MFs beyond reason the next year.
It gets to the point where NO owners can afford to keep their villas.
NOW---Marriott has the whole resort to itself.

What they will do with it as part of the plan?

Get ready for part 3.


----------



## Zac495

modoaruba said:


> Knowing that they cannot sell the villas due to the high price and increase in MFs,Marriott increases the MFs beyond reason the next year.
> It gets to the point where NO owners can afford to keep their villas.
> NOW---Marriott has the whole resort to itself.
> 
> What they will do with it as part of the plan?
> 
> Get ready for part 3.



Are the fees going up next year? Corey, the GM, told me they'd go down next year. He said there was a certain 70 dollars or so that was definitely going away (don't recall why).


----------



## dioxide45

modoaruba said:


> Knowing that they cannot sell the villas due to the high price and increase in MFs,Marriott increases the MFs beyond reason the next year.
> It gets to the point where NO owners can afford to keep their villas.
> NOW---Marriott has the whole resort to itself.
> 
> What they will do with it as part of the plan?
> 
> Get ready for part 3.



But where does Marriott come up with the cash to reinvest back in to sell those units, market them and try to turn them over quickly? An empty resort isn't much of a money maker for Marriott. In this enviroment it would take them a lot of time to resell those units to brand new owners.


----------



## modoaruba

dioxide45 said:


> But where does Marriott come up with the cash to reinvest back in to sell those units, market them and try to turn them over quickly? An empty resort isn't much of a money maker for Marriott. In this enviroment it would take them a lot of time to resell those units to brand new owners.



I didn't say that at the end that they would sell the villas.But a more diabolical plan is in the works.
You want conspiricy theories or not?


----------



## modoaruba

*conspiracy theory part 3*

OK. Everyone ready?

As you all know,many owners and guests of Marriot internationally,that includes people like Eric,Sue, and myself included(sticking to FACTS)have been absconding Marriot pens.
The cost internationally has put a severe dent in their finances.
Inorder to improve their balance sheets,they have chosen the path to manufacture their own pens.
So,the resort at the AOC will be converted to a pen manufacturing facility.
Look at the facts!


----------



## ecwinch

Zac495 said:


> Are the fees going up next year? Corey, the GM, told me they'd go down next year. He said there was a certain 70 dollars or so that was definitely going away (don't recall why).



Modo's posts are made in jest. I do not believe that any 2010 m/f information for MVCI resorts has been released this early in the year.


----------



## billymach4

modoaruba said:


> OK. Everyone ready?
> 
> As you all know,many owners and guests of Marriot internationally,that includes people like Eric,Sue, and myself included(sticking to FACTS)have been absconding Marriot pens.
> The cost internationally has put a severe dent in their finances.
> Inorder to improve their balance sheets,they have chosen the path to manufacture their own pens.
> So,the resort at the AOC will be converted to a pen manufacturing facility.
> Look at the facts!




It's true. 

They will employ the local Aruban labor force to manufacture pens, pads, shampoo etc. These items will then be sold to the other Marriott resorts worldwide. I have confirmed this on Snopes. I believe the profit from this venture will solve the financial stress that has burdened AOC owners.


----------



## vacationmama

It seems to me that by the time the concerned group of AOC owners is done, the Ocean Club that we all have loved will be in such disarray and have such a bad name from all the controversy that no one will go there, want to buy there and the Marriott will give it up as well for management.  Then we can all say thank you to this group for devaluing what we all bought to the point that they are as worthless as many stocks have become.


----------



## modoaruba

vacationmama said:


> It seems to me that by the time the concerned group of AOC owners is done, the Ocean Club that we all have loved will be in such disarray and have such a bad name from all the controversy that no one will go there, want to buy there and the Marriott will give it up as well for management.  Then we can all say thank you to this group for devaluing what we all bought to the point that they are as worthless as many stocks have become.



Don't throw your deed into the fire yet.
Facts to consider:

Majority of owners have no clue as to all of this.
Financial times of today make any little unpleasantness a fiasco psychologically.
We have a very beautiful resort in one of the world's greatest location.
As much as Marriott gets dissed here,they still have a world renowned respectable name.(price of fame).
Even though I am one of those who was against remodeling at this time,we will have an even more beautiful resort.
Hang in there,keep the faith--I for one am NOT selling.


----------



## ecwinch

vacationmama said:


> It seems to me that by the time the concerned group of AOC owners is done, the Ocean Club that we all have loved will be in such disarray and have such a bad name from all the controversy that no one will go there, want to buy there and the Marriott will give it up as well for management.  Then we can all say thank you to this group for devaluing what we all bought to the point that they are as worthless as many stocks have become.



Ditto to all that Modo said. All this fuss has very little impact on the value of your timeshare. If your value has dropped, that is more due to the overall economy and the large assessments that are due. Those factors are creating more people selling, so price naturally goes down when supply increases. And you have the impact of MVCI building a mega-resort right next door, so buyers will naturally gravitate to the bright new resort.

And I think we are past the point that MVCI will give up management of the resort. If a hostile Board of Directors is seated then you have a real risk of that happening, but for the time being that threat has passed.

Ride out this storm, and in 2-3 years, things will look better.

You have a better location, and your resort is far less crowded than the Surf Club. Things will "return to the mean" over time.

Though it might be more appropriate for one the crusaders - like Mark - to respond to your concerns. Though maybe you should state emphatically that you own there first. They like to know that stuff.


----------



## Luckybee

The controversy wasnt created by the significant numbers of owners who are concerned with the MOC .It was created by Marriott and the actions taken by the board. 
Although I am not involved in the specific "concerned owners group" I am very much a concerned owner, although my status as owner may very well change depending on the outcome of what takes place.  From the emails and info I've received as to where I suspect this is going I would be very surprised if this "storm" will blow over quickly. I am also quite optimistic that another board will be seated , but rather than the "hostile " board we have now, this would be a board "receptive and not hostile " to the owners as opposed to placing the interests of the management company ahead of those who own the resort.


----------



## Dean

Luckybee said:


> The controversy wasnt created by the significant numbers of owners who are concerned with the MOC .It was created by Marriott and the actions taken by the board.


That would be a matter of opinion wouldn't it.  I would say the controversy was created directly by one member of the BOD and a handful of owners in response to the SA and maint fees and their judgement of the appropriateness (or lack of) of the fees being passed on to owners rather than covered by Marriott, who agreed to cover roughly half of them anyway.  The controversy itself was not created by Marriott, the BOD or the resort.  It was created by a handful of people in response to actions they perceived as inappropriate.  Time will hopefully answer the question as to whether they were accurate in their judgement of appropriateness.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> The controversy wasnt created by the significant numbers of owners who are concerned with the MOC .It was created by Marriott and the actions taken by the board.
> Although I am not involved in the specific "concerned owners group" I am very much a concerned owner, although my status as owner may very well change depending on the outcome of what takes place.  From the emails and info I've received as to where I suspect this is going I would be very surprised if this "storm" will blow over quickly. I am also quite optimistic that another board will be seated , but rather than the "hostile " board we have now, this would be a board "receptive and not hostile " to the owners as opposed to placing the interests of the management company ahead of those who own the resort.



Typically the "cause" is attributed to the moving party. When a car runs into a brick wall, we do not say the wall hit the car. 

In this case the actions of the MVCI and the AOC caused the "concerned owners group" to take certain actions that created the situation. 

Without the actions of the "concerned owners group" this situation would not exist. They are moving party in this situation. The party that initiates the action.  

And thanks for the update that the BoD will be replaced. That will allay the concerns entirely.

And while I can understand that you might possess information that the BoD will be removed, what information could you possible possess that allows you know the viewpoint of the new BoD? 

Don't you need to have elections when the current BoD is removed? Is the outcome of that election pre-ordained?

Is this as credible as the reports that the special meeting was about to be called? Are the facts as concrete as the last time? Are you sure the lawyer put a stamp on the demand letter, or overlooked some essential requirement that will doom the effort?


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> And thanks for the update that the BoD will be replaced. That will allay the concerns entirely.
> 
> And while I can understand that you might possess information that the BoD will be removed, what information could you possible possess that allows you know the viewpoint of the new BoD?
> 
> Don't you need to have elections when the current BoD is removed? Is the outcome of that election pre-ordained?
> 
> Is this as credible as the reports that the special meeting was about to be called? Are the facts as concrete as the last time? Are you sure the lawyer put a stamp on the demand letter, or overlooked some essential requirement that will doom the effort?



Perhaps you didnt read my message but I am not going to sit back while you place your sarcastic spin, and attempt to attribute to me something I did not say. My exact words were  "I am also quite optimistic that another board will be seated ,but rather than the "hostile " board we have now, this would be a board "receptive and not hostile " to the owners as opposed to placing the interests of the management company ahead of those who own the resort ". 
Let me provide you with a definition of the word optimistic. Merriam Webster or Wilkepdia :
" an inclination to put the most favorable construction upon actions and events or to anticipate the best possible outcome ". 
I did not say the board WOULD be replaced. I said I was quite OPTIMISTIC that they would. It is my optimism that has me believeing that if the current board is ousted a more owner focused board would be in place. After all it couldnt be less owner focused than it is now. In other words anything would be an improvement. I have no idea who would even run if elections were held. But the beauty is that at least qualified candidates may have the opportunity to do so without the current board automatically deciding who could be placed for nomination. 
I have no idea whether the lawyers efforts will fail first time around or not, as I said I am not involved in the specific "concerned owners group" (perhaps something else you missed in my post) but I suspect that those involved are not going to give up as easily as the non owners would like. So please when you decide to spin do so by at least reading the post first


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Perhaps you didnt read my message but I am not going to sit back while you place your sarcastic spin, and attempt to attribute to me something I did not say. My exact words were  "I am also quite optimistic that another board will be seated ,but rather than the "hostile " board we have now, this would be a board "receptive and not hostile " to the owners as opposed to placing the interests of the management company ahead of those who own the resort ".
> Let me provide you with a definition of the word optimistic. Merriam Webster or Wilkepdia :
> " an inclination to put the most favorable construction upon actions and events or to anticipate the best possible outcome ".
> I did not say the board WOULD be replaced. I said I was quite OPTIMISTIC that they would. It is my optimism that has me believeing that if the current board is ousted a more owner focused board would be in place. After all it couldnt be less owner focused than it is now. In other words anything would be an improvement. I have no idea who would even run if elections were held. But the beauty is that at least qualified candidates may have the opportunity to do so without the current board automatically deciding who could be placed for nomination.
> I have no idea whether the lawyers efforts will fail first time around or not, as I said I am not involved in the specific "concerned owners group" (perhaps something else you missed in my post) but I suspect that those involved are not going to give up as easily as the non owners would like. So please when you decide to spin *do so by at least reading the post first*



No, I read your post. See you can easily tell that, because the questions I asked were of things that you said in your post, and I was asking follow-up questions about. The fact that the follow-up question is about your points is a tip that I might have read your post. 

And see how my follow-up is in the form of a question, rather than "I am glad to hear that the election of the directors to replace the existing board has already been decided without an owner election.".

Because as I now understand it, your original post was just to convey the optimism that you felt "from the emails and info I've received".


----------



## Luckybee

Obviously I was confused. You see I assumed you hadnt read it since you were attributing things to me that I didnt say  I didnt realize it was just a comprehension issue !


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Obviously I was confused. You see I assumed you hadnt read it since you were attributing things to me that I didnt say  I didnt realize it was just a comprehension issue !



No problem. I understand that you were just pinch-hitting for Mark. Perhaps he will chime to answer the owners question.


----------



## lovearuba

*Mark*



ecwinch said:


> No problem. I understand that you were just pinch-hitting for Mark. Perhaps he will chime to answer the owners question.


 
Marksue can speak for himself and we can speak for ourselves.  We just dont understand what your purpose really is?  Are you speaking for Marriott, yourself because you are trying to learn about timeshare boards for your Worldmark timeshare or just because you like to bully folks on these boards?


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Marksue can speak for himself and we can speak for ourselves.  We just dont understand what your purpose really is?  Are you speaking for Marriott, yourself because you are trying to learn about timeshare boards for your Worldmark timeshare or just because you like to bully folks on these boards?



I have been involved in this thread for over 9 months. My goal, as I have stated many times, has been to be a moderate voice. At times I side with the crusaders, but more frequently I am forced to rebut when opinion is stated as fact or with the rewritten history that is offered. In fact you have even made that same observation.

We are in a lull right now, awaiting further developments. The tone of the thread has become more of playful banter. If you are taking my posts as a personal afront, or feel I am bullying you, I apologize. That is not my intent. It is just playful banter, and I am sorry that you are taking some other way.

Likewise, I could ask what your purpose is? Why do you feel the need to question why people post? Why do you post?


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> No problem. I understand that you were just pinch-hitting for Mark. Perhaps he will chime to answer the owners question.



This is why your posts are so darn annoying. I have corresponded with Mark once by email. I dont know the man, have never met him, know nothing about him other than what I have heard through others and yet your sarcasm drools through as though Mark and I have some connection. Why would I pinch hit for him ? Pure utter nonsense yet your spinning it this way to attempt to influence other owners. If Mark is smart he wont speak to your comments at all...I shouldnt either since they are so full of.... !


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> I have been involved in this thread for over 9 months. My goal, as I have stated many times, has been to be a moderate voice. At times I side with the crusaders, but more frequently I am forced to rebut when opinion is stated as fact or with the rewritten history that is offered. In fact you have even made that same observation.
> 
> We are in a lull right now, awaiting further developments. The tone of the thread has become more of playful banter. If you are taking my posts as a personal afront, or feel I am bullying you, I apologize. That is not my intent. It is just playful banter, and I am sorry that you are taking some other way.
> 
> Likewise, I could ask what your purpose is? Why do you feel the need to question why people post? Why do you post?




Im sorry but I dont think its playful banter at all when you make the kind of comments you make !


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Im sorry but I dont think its playful banter at all when you make the kind of comments you make !



I respect your right to have that opinion, but I can only indicate my intent. I have apologized, and outlined my logic.

I can understand that it is annoying that I have a different opinion, and that I am diligent about voicing it. Someone challenging your opinion can be difficult for some. It is just a difference of opinion, and nothing personal (on my end at least).


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> I respect your right to have that opinion, but I can only indicate my intent. I have apologized, and outlined my logic.
> 
> I can understand that it is annoying that I have a different opinion, and that I am diligent about voicing it. Someone challenging your opinion can be difficult for some. It is just a difference of opinion, and nothing personal (on my end at least).



It isnt your opinion I have problems with ! If you had read my post carefully I didnt question that part of your comments that were opinion. It is that you try to slant the truth as evidenced by some of your comments ie : "that I was pinch hitting for Marrk", after I had already indicated in previous posts that I was not involved in the concerned owners group and that I didnt know Mark. Or where you indicated that I had said that the BOD WOULD be replaced, when in fact I said I was optimistic that they would.  You werent challenging my opinion, you were attributing statements to me that I did not make. But now Im just repeating myself. If you dont understand what Im saying by now Im sure you wont by my saying it again !


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> It isnt your opinion I have problems with ! If you had read my post carefully I didnt question that part of your comments that were opinion. It is that you try to slant the truth as evidenced by some of your comments ie : "that I was pinch hitting for Marrk", after I had already indicated in previous posts that I was not involved in the concerned owners group and that I didnt know Mark. Or where you indicated that I had said that the BOD WOULD be replaced, when in fact I said I was optimistic that they would.  You werent challenging my opinion, you were attributing statements to me that I did not make. But now Im just repeating myself. If you dont understand what Im saying by now Im sure you wont by my saying it again !



You are reading way too much into my post. I meant, "pinch-hitting" as in Mark has not posted in response to VacationMama's post, so you are doing so. 

It was not meant to infer that you and Mark are in some sinister cabal together, and acting in concert. 

And I was asking follow-up questions of you. Other than the first item, which I apologized for, each item had a question mark at the end. I was not attributing that statement to you, it was a question to you.

I understood your response the first time. Again, I do not know why I have struck a nerve, but I meant no harm by my remarks. I would suggest we forgive and forget....


----------



## marksue

vacationmama said:


> It seems to me that by the time the concerned group of AOC owners is done, the Ocean Club that we all have loved will be in such disarray and have such a bad name from all the controversy that no one will go there, want to buy there and the Marriott will give it up as well for management.  Then we can all say thank you to this group for devaluing what we all bought to the point that they are as worthless as many stocks have become.



Your units will not be devalued. The units are currently devalued because of the high MF.  It costs less to buy into the Surf Club then the based OC on the MF comparing the 2 bedroom units.  About $500 cheaper annually.   

In fact when all is said and done Marriott will still be running the place, but the owners will have more say and will know what is going on.    Marriott will not walk from the property that is between the hotel and SC.  The fallout from such a move would be a PR nightmare.  Can you imagine Hyatt owning the building inbetween and blocking all access to SC or Hotel folks.

Transparency will be a boon to the owners vs what we have today is a board that is not giving us the entire story and is being manipulated by Marriott as we can see from the BOD elections.

If any owner has questions or concerns please feel free to send me a PM.  I will respond to you as soon as I can.


----------



## modoaruba

Seems like Eric pushed a few buttons out there.
Take it in stride.
Going on the defensive does not add to the cause.
A true cause must stand on it's own merits.
Until more substantial info is heard some have tried to bait,and it's working.
Since this board is still active,why be offensive?
Why take the opposing views seriously?Have fun with them just like they're having fun with the causal views.


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> Your units will not be devalued. The units are currently devalued because of the high MF.  It costs less to buy into the Surf Club then the based OC on the MF comparing the 2 bedroom units.  About $500 cheaper annually. ...



This completely discounts the facts that have been stated here numerous times but completely ignored by the "concerned owners" group:
- that Marriott Aruba Ocean Club has fewer weeks in its inventory than Marriott Aruba Surf Club,
- that MASC sits on a smaller parcel of land than MAOC,
- that MAOC is an older resort than MASC, and,
- that MAOC's m/f have not been in line historically with comparable Aruban properties.

All of those factors make Aruba Ocean Club a more expensive resort to maintain.  As Dean has said here many times, the cost comparisons should be made between Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club and similar resorts on the island, _not_ between Marriott's two Aruban properties.



marksue said:


> In fact when all is said and done Marriott will still be running the place, but the owners will have more say and will know what is going on. ...



Preface this with, "_Hopefully, if_ the "concerned owners" group is eventually successful with demands that do not appear to conform to the Marriott timeshare model as stipulated in the contracts, and MVCI does not get pushed by those demands to the point of severing its management relationship with AOC ..."



marksue said:


> Marriott will not walk from the property that is between the hotel and SC. The fallout from such a move would be a PR nightmare.  Can you imagine Hyatt owning the building inbetween and blocking all access to SC or Hotel folks. ...



Again, another complete discounting of the facts that Marriott/MVCI has in the past dissolved management agreements with certain properties, and survived the PR fallout.



marksue said:


> Transparency will be a boon to the owners vs what we have today is a board that is not giving us the entire story and is being manipulated by Marriott as we can see from the BOD elections. ...



And again, there is no contract provision that will support such a relationship between an MVCI resort and its BOD.

Nevermind that owners should _expect_ that Marriott/MVCI will "manipulate" anything at all with respect to their resorts that is contractually enforceable.  What this group sees as "manipulations," other people see as good business practices.


----------



## tlwmkw

Just FYI- the Barony Beach Club on Hilton Head is built around a Westin and it doesn't seem to phase anyone- admittedly this was built this way so less of a "PR" issue.   But if Marriott decides that the Aruba Ocean Club is getting too expensive or difficult to run they will drop it regardless of how the other resorts are arranged.  Another thing to note is that the resort wasn't built by Marriott (as you have repeatedly pointed out) and they have so far only dropped resorts built by others.  Don't think that you are safe from losing Marriott if they decide it is not worth their trouble to stick with the AOC.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> You are reading way too much into my post. I meant, "pinch-hitting" as in Mark has not posted in response to VacationMama's post, so you are doing so.
> 
> It was not meant to infer that you and Mark are in some sinister cabal together, and acting in concert.
> 
> And I was asking follow-up questions of you. Other than the first item, which I apologized for, each item had a question mark at the end. I was not attributing that statement to you, it was a question to you.
> 
> I understood your response the first time. Again, I do not know why I have struck a nerve, but I meant no harm by my remarks. I would suggest we forgive and forget....



Given what you've now said I obviously misinterpreted your post. No problem...forgive and forget is appropriate


----------



## modoaruba

Speculation at best by both sides.
How does one know as fact what Marriott will do?
When Mr. Marriott himself comes out with an answer, then I can reply with intelligence.
Some may say "deductive reasoning",I say BS until there is a definitive answer.Sometimes what is obvious to some may surprise them in the end.
In the mean time,since it is taking a long time,it's getting very repeatitive.


----------



## Luckybee

marksue said:


> Your units will not be devalued. The units are currently devalued because of the high MF.  It costs less to buy into the Surf Club then the based OC on the MF comparing the 2 bedroom units.  About $500 cheaper annually.
> 
> In fact when all is said and done Marriott will still be running the place, but the owners will have more say and will know what is going on.    Marriott will not walk from the property that is between the hotel and SC.  The fallout from such a move would be a PR nightmare.  Can you imagine Hyatt owning the building inbetween and blocking all access to SC or Hotel folks.
> 
> Transparency will be a boon to the owners vs what we have today is a board that is not giving us the entire story and is being manipulated by Marriott as we can see from the BOD elections.
> 
> If any owner has questions or concerns please feel free to send me a PM.  I will respond to you as soon as I can.



This is just my personal opinion but I dont necessarily agree that there is no possibility that Marriott would walk away. But perhaps unlike others owners the thought of that happening doesnt worry me. I say that because we didnt buy to trade we bought to use(the only trades we have made since inception were because of medical issues). So for us that fear simply isnt there ! Admittedly the original purchase was done partly because of the Marriott name but, given what has now transpired Im not very confident with that name any longer  
There are a great number of timeshares on the island that are run on the island as independents quite successfully. Moreover, as Allan pointed out there are a great number of other reputable companies out there ie : Hilton, Sheraton, Westin etc.


----------



## SueDonJ

tlwmkw said:


> Just FYI- the Barony Beach Club on Hilton Head is built around a Westin and it doesn't seem to phase anyone- admittedly this was built this way so less of a "PR" issue.   But if Marriott decides that the Aruba Ocean Club is getting too expensive or difficult to run they will drop it regardless of how the other resorts are arranged.  Another thing to note is that the resort wasn't built by Marriott (as you have repeatedly pointed out) and they have so far only dropped resorts built by others.  Don't think that you are safe from losing Marriott if they decide it is not worth their trouble to stick with the AOC.



The dissolution that happened at Vail is the one to be most leery of - there the property was split up and MVCI continued its management agreeement with only certain buildings.  (See this post from Dean.)

If MVCI would be willing to continue a management agreement with only certain buildings within a resort, the possibility definitely exists that they would be willing to dissolve a management contract with a certain resort regardless of the neighboring properties.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> Speculation at best by both sides.
> *How does one know as fact what Marriott will do?*
> When Mr. Marriott himself comes out with an answer, then I can reply with intelligence.
> Some may say "deductive reasoning",I say BS until there is a definitive answer.Sometimes what is obvious to some may surprise them in the end.
> In the mean time,since it is taking a long time,it's getting very repeatitive.



You can't know exactly what Marriott *will* do, but you can review and acknowledge past history to get an idea of what they *may* do.  I fail to see how it helps the cause to completely ignore such things as MVCI's past actions and the contractual limitations that run counter to the "concerned owners" expectations.  Sure, they want things at their resort to be a certain way, but as yet (at least here) they have not acknowledged any of the legitimate obstructions standing in the way of what they would term a successful MVCI/BOD/owner relationship.

(And no, this isn't a demand that any of the owners must immediately answer every single one of my comments here.  It's just an observation by me.)

You're exactly right, though, that this is all repetitive.  At this point most of us could probably recite this stuff in our sleep.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> Your units will not be devalued. The units are currently devalued because of the high MF.  It costs less to buy into the Surf Club then the based OC on the MF comparing the 2 bedroom units.  About $500 cheaper annually.
> 
> In fact when all is said and done Marriott will still be running the place, but the owners will have more say and will know what is going on.    Marriott will not walk from the property that is between the hotel and SC.  The fallout from such a move would be a PR nightmare.  Can you imagine Hyatt owning the building inbetween and blocking all access to SC or Hotel folks.
> 
> Transparency will be a boon to the owners vs what we have today is a board that is not giving us the entire story and is being manipulated by Marriott as we can see from the BOD elections.
> 
> If any owner has questions or concerns please feel free to send me a PM.  I will respond to you as soon as I can.



I think you mean to say it costs less to own as SC on an annual basis. Obviously if resale prices are dropping to the extent reported here, it costs less to "buy into" AOC.

As Sue pointed out, the difference in m/f is largely due to the lower density, larger lot, and far fewer units. But a contributing factor is also the decision made by the BoD, that Allan Cohen led,  to add a separate General Manager & supporting staff to the AOC operating costs. For obvious reasons, that last point keeps failing through the cracks. 

Even if everything else had stayed the same - no spike in energy costs, no repairs, no refurbishment, no inflation - m/f were still going to increase due to decision made by the BoD that Allan led, to further break with SC, and create a separate mgt team. 

But the current BoD seems to get all the blame for that issue. Go figure.

And I for one, think it is foolhardy to think that MVCI will continue to manage a resort that has a BoD that wants to pursue legal action and is adversarial. No sane person would continue a business relationship in that type of environment. IMO - as soon as that comes to pass, MVCI will drop AOC so fast it will make your head spin. Want to speculate on nightmares - I think they will endure having to walk-around AOC in order to get rid of that one. 

Mark, I understand that it furthers your goal to ignore and discount that possibility. But I think you are being disingenuous in ignoring the valid concern of AOC owners.


----------



## marksue

ecwinch said:


> As Sue pointed out, the difference in m/f is largely due to the lower density, larger lot, and far fewer units. But a contributing factor is also the decision made by the BoD, that Allan Cohen led,  to add a separate General Manager & supporting staff to the AOC operating costs. For obvious reasons, that last point keeps failing through the cracks.
> Even if everything else had stayed the same - no spike in energy costs, no repairs, no refurbishment, no inflation - m/f were still going to increase due to decision made by the BoD that Allan led, to further break with SC, and create a separate mgt team.
> 
> .



It has not gone under the radar.  I have been quite vocal about hiring of the mgmt team in the OC during these economic times.  In fact there are numerous posts about it.   Frank, Melissa and Steve were all part of the board

Up until this year the surf club and ocean club had similar mf.  The difference was about $100 more for the OC.   Now a 1 BR MF in the OC costs more than a 2br in the SC.


----------



## london

*Marriott Drops AOC*

It will be interesting to see if in fact Marriott will cancel the contract with AOC?

I assume that the present agreement will run a few years, unless terminated by mutual consent of all parties.

I am just an interested outside party....I realize the original post was to read if you are an AOC owner.

It appears that many posts are from non-owners. 

Perhaps we should stay out of the conversation?


----------



## Chemee

SueDonJ said:


> All of those factors make Aruba Ocean Club a more expensive resort to maintain.  As Dean has said here many times, the cost comparisons should be made between Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club and similar resorts on the island, _not_ between Marriott's two Aruban properties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What similar resorts are you talking about?  I know of none that are in the same league.  You need to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.
Click to expand...


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> It has not gone under the radar.  I have been quite vocal about hiring of the mgmt team in the OC during these economic times.  In fact there are numerous posts about it.   Frank, Melissa and Steve were all part of the board
> 
> Up until this year the surf club and ocean club had similar mf.  The difference was about $100 more for the OC.   Now a 1 BR MF in the OC costs more than a 2br in the SC.



And who was the BoD President when the decision was made? And how did he vote on the issue?

I am sure he voted against the measure, being such a staunch advocate of the owners and having such a strong desire to keep costs low. 

And your earlier protests ignored the fact that the decision had already been executed, and how problematic it would have been to revert to the previous arrangement. Employment contracts, termination costs, etc. And there is no obligation on the behalf of the SC to revert to the previous arrangement. So that would have to have been negotiated. And it sounds like the two resorts get along, so that should not be a problem. lol...

Like most points you have made, you completely omitted the difficulty in implementing your suggestion. The reverse is true, you made it sound like the BoD could unilaterally make that change without any problem. And I think your recollection on the timing might be off....

I recognize that it is an inconvenient truth in the revisionist history provided here.

Go ahead, you can say it.....


----------



## ecwinch

london said:


> It appears that many posts are from non-owners.
> 
> Perhaps we should stay out of the conversation?



Why?

From my perspective, the ripple effect from this action is already forcing MVCI to operate differently at all resorts. It impacts all of us, and the fallout could be greater.

For your resort, has your BoD members contact info disappeared? And now all communication needs to flow through the MVCI on-site manager? 

It has at mine. I only get the names of my BoD members. No phone, address, or e-mail.

It is reasonable to deduce that events at AOC contributed to this change. The information was available to me last year.

And it not a discussion, as much as it is a pulpit. Or maybe a stage with audience participation.


----------



## SueDonJ

Chemee said:


> What similar resorts are you talking about?  I know of none that are in the same league.  You need to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.



My mistake in wording; Dean's actual idea was that cost comparisons should be made between similar island properties, not necessarily those only situated on Aruba.  I believe he made the comparison to Hawaiian resorts, and possibly St. Kitts or St. Thomas?

In any event, what you say about comparing apples to oranges is appropriate here.  MAOC and MASC are not comparable resorts for a number of reasons.


----------



## ecwinch

Chemee said:


> What similar resorts are you talking about?  I know of none that are in the same league.  You need to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.



There are a lot of resorts in Aruba. Do you want to expound on your position?

For, I think there are some other Aruba resort owners that might take umbrage with that comment. Clarification might prevent another flame war...


----------



## SueDonJ

london said:


> It will be interesting to see if in fact Marriott will cancel the contract with AOC?
> 
> I assume that the present agreement will run a few years, unless terminated by mutual consent of all parties.
> 
> I am just an interested outside party....I realize the original post was to read if you are an AOC owner.
> 
> It appears that many posts are from non-owners.
> 
> Perhaps we should stay out of the conversation?



We've discussed this before.  I think that there is a lot to learn here for any MVCI owner, both in terms of this individual resort and MVCI in its entirety.  Those who don't own at MAOC are not by virtue of their non-owner status completely ignorant to the issues and situations that do/may apply here, which means the input from them could actually aid the "concerned owners" group in their efforts.

Besides, where do you draw the line at prohibiting/qualifying input?  Only those who have signed on Marksue's dotted line should participate?  Only those who own at MAOC and sympathize with the cause should participate?  Only those who own at MAOC despite their opposition to the cause should participate?  Any old Joe Schmoe should participate?

I'll take the Joe Schmoe one - the more, the merrier.


----------



## timeos2

*The end game has actually come and some don't seem to see it*

From my outsiders viewpoint it appears the lines have been drawn now between the splinter group - smaller than originally thought it was it appears - and the majority that seemingly stands with Marriott. The bottom line is the second group has control, has implemented the fee structure as they saw needed, have OK'd the renovavtions/repairs/plans as proposed, put in place the management structure they desired and now things will operate under that rule unless a major and unexpected turn of events takes place. They will be proposing the 2010 budget/fees and will in all likelihood have th votes in place to approve it. 

The chance of things ever being rolled back or fees reduced are just  about nil.  The owners had best decide if they like what has resulted and are willing to stay with it or if it doesn't represent value for them any longer. The "war" is over barring a sudden shot that will take dollars that I seriously doubt anyone is willing to put up.  Unless they do you can call this thread done.


----------



## ecwinch

timeos2 said:


> From my outsiders viewpoint it appears the lines have been drawn now between the splinter group - smaller than originally thought it was it appears - and the majority that seemingly stands with Marriott. The bottom line is the second group has control, has implemented the fee structure as they saw needed, have OK'd the renovavtions/repairs/plans as proposed, put in place the management structure they desired and now things will operate under that rule unless a major and unexpected turn of events takes place. They will be proposing the 2010 budget/fees and will in all likelihood have th votes in place to approve it.
> 
> The chance of things ever being rolled back or fees reduced are just  about nil.  The owners had best decide if they like what has resulted and are willing to stay with it or if it doesn't represent value for them any longer. The "war" is over barring a sudden shot that will take dollars that I seriously doubt anyone is willing to put up.  Unless they do you can call this thread done.



I disagree that this thread is done. It serves as a good outlet for TUG'ers to keep up to date on the continuing saga. Otherwise, we would have a new thread every time there is a development. And that thread would not contain all the interesting background on issue.

Sure the banter might seem pointless when we have these big lulls in activity. But every now and then, a new owner at AOC wanders in, and it gives them a good resource for learning the history of the crusade (if they are bored out of their mind), ask questions, and express their viewpoint - pro or con. VacationMamma being a recent example.

I think that is important.

And I do not stand with MVCI. I stand against the splinter group that wants to take control of the resort. Allowing a disgruntled former BoD President whose feelings got hurt, to abuse his position and secretly support a militant faction is a violation of his fiduciary responsibilities, IMO. It poisons the whole crusade.


----------



## timeos2

*Keep it up but the facts are the facts*



ecwinch said:


> I disagree that this thread is done. It serves as a good outlet for TUG'ers to keep up to date on the continuing saga. Otherwise, we would have a new thread every time there is a development. And that thread would not contain all the interesting background on issue.
> 
> Sure the banter might seem pointless when we have these big lulls in activity. But every now and then, a new owner at AOC wanders in, and it gives them a good resource for learning the history of the crusade (if they are bored out of their mind), ask questions, and express their viewpoint - pro or con.
> 
> I think that is important.



I don't mean kill the thread - its great - but that the news isn't what the splinter group wants (and is unlikely to ever get now) but rather the ongoing and regular operation of the resort. Still interesting but no longer subject to change as it is posted as a done deal. Not to say complaints or suggestions can;t be offered but it appears those in power aren't listening here or don't care/agree.


----------



## modoaruba

Allowing a disgruntled former BoD President whose feelings got hurt, to abuse his position and secretly support a militant faction is a violation of his fiduciary responsibilities, IMO. It poisons the whole crusade.

I do not agreee with the tone regarding Allan.
After speaking to him in the past, I feel he was very sincere in his beliefs and was conducting himself in what he believes to be in the best interest of the owners.
Wether he be right or wrong,his views are backed by facts.He is not shooting from the hip.
He believes in transparancy as opposed to Marriott's status quo.
He brought to light many issues that no one would ever know about while Marriott keeps them under lock and key.
Owners are split between the two.
So which is right?


----------



## london

*Well Said*



timeos2 said:


> From my outsiders viewpoint it appears the lines have been drawn now between the splinter group - smaller than originally thought it was it appears - and the majority that seemingly stands with Marriott. The bottom line is the second group has control, has implemented the fee structure as they saw needed, have OK'd the renovavtions/repairs/plans as proposed, put in place the management structure they desired and now things will operate under that rule unless a major and unexpected turn of events takes place. They will be proposing the 2010 budget/fees and will in all likelihood have th votes in place to approve it.
> 
> The chance of things ever being rolled back or fees reduced are just  about nil.  The owners had best decide if they like what has resulted and are willing to stay with it or if it doesn't represent value for them any longer. The "war" is over barring a sudden shot that will take dollars that I seriously doubt anyone is willing to put up.  Unless they do you can call this thread done.



John

You have summed this up nicely. I agree totally.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*The Important Question.*




modoaruba said:


> Owners are split between the two.
> So which is right?


Would you rather be _right_ ?

Or would you rather be happy ?

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


----------



## ecwinch

timeos2 said:


> I don't mean kill the thread - its great - but that the news isn't what the splinter group wants (and is unlikely to ever get now) but rather the ongoing and regular operation of the resort. Still interesting but no longer subject to change as it is posted as a done deal. Not to say complaints or suggestions can;t be offered but it appears those in power aren't listening here or don't care/agree.



See I thought you were wading in with your Moderator hat, and blowing the 5 minute whistle. That you were not going to close the thread at that time.

And they really should give you hats, so we know when you are posting as a moderator and when you are expressing your individual opinion like any other.

They have not listened to the non-owners for a long time. Otherwise they would not be in the current pickle....


----------



## modoaruba

AwayWeGo said:


> Would you rather be _right_ ?
> 
> Or would you rather be happy ?
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



If that what's it all about?
That's why I enjoy all of my vacations.
Isn't it amazing that the answer is always right in front of us?


----------



## ecwinch

AwayWeGo said:


> Would you rather be _right_ ?
> 
> Or would you rather be happy ?
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



Actually I am generally only happy when I am right.

Not happy when I am wrong.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> Actually I am generally only happy when I am right.
> 
> Not happy when I am wrong.



Howw coldd!


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Allowing a disgruntled former BoD President whose feelings got hurt, to abuse his position and secretly support a militant faction is a violation of his fiduciary responsibilities, IMO. It poisons the whole crusade.
> 
> I do not agreee with the tone regarding Allan.
> After speaking to him in the past, I feel he was very sincere in his beliefs and was conducting himself in what he believes to be in the best interest of the owners.
> Wether he be right or wrong,his views are backed by facts.He is not shooting from the hip.
> He believes in transparancy as opposed to Marriott's status quo.
> He brought to light many issues that no one would ever know about while Marriott keeps them under lock and key.
> Owners are split between the two.
> So which is right?



I think you are reading too much into the words I selected, but I do not disagree with your points. I have said this before, I think Allan probably was the type of BoD President that most of us would like to have. From all accounts, he was a good owner advocate, worked tirelessly for the owners, and was extremely dedicated. I think he loved being BoD President.

My opinion is that something snapped when things did not go his way, and the BoD elected not to pursue the legal action against MVCI. At that point, I think he lost sight of his fiduciary responsibilities to the membership as a whole. I think his motivations were pure, but he failed to fully understand that he had no authority to undermine the actions of the BoD once it voted on the matter.  That is where I deduce the problem lie. As a BoD member, once it had been voted on, he had the duty and obligation to support that decision and not undermine it.  In undermining the actions of the BoD, he abused the power of his office. No matter how strongly he felt about the issue, his duty was to the BoD and the membership as a whole. 

Further, I think he felt railroaded by MVCI efforts to enforce the by-laws regarding term limits, and remove him from a position that he loved. That emotion blinded his decision to begin to leak information to Mark, and to support Mark's crusade. The information leak and advice is well documented in this thread, and in my opinion represent a significant breach of his obligations and an abuse of his power. 

This crusade would not have gone on as long as it has without Allan's encouragement and assistance. In the end, I doubt he will be proud of the outcome and the expense of his actions. JMO.


----------



## Dean

tlwmkw said:


> Just FYI- the Barony Beach Club on Hilton Head is built around a Westin and it doesn't seem to phase anyone


Maybe not totally related to your point but I think the setup of BBC does affect it's inherent value and how people think about it.  Location is another negative compared to say Grande Ocean.  Those in the know are less likely to trade to BBC given the fact they'll likely get a garden view unit and they are significantly inferior in location to the rest of the resort.  This is less of an issue if you own but don't own a GV unit though it does affect trade power to a minor degree though maybe not enough to matter at this point.  Plus being a Marriott has inherent value, something that would decrease immediately if Marriott pulled out.



modoaruba said:


> Speculation at best by both sides.
> How does one know as fact what Marriott will do?


I don't think anyone knows what Marriott will do, likely not even themselves at the present time.  however, I think we know what they are capable of doing given the right circumstances and that is what many of us have pointed out.  Don't think for a second they are not willing to walk away and divide up the resort given the right circumstances.  Just ask the Vail owners who said Marriott could not LEGALLY divide up that resort including some very in the know TUGGERS.  I doubt they would drop the contract but rather just let it expire, less controversy that way.



Chemee said:


> What similar resorts are you talking about?  I know of none that are in the same league.  You need to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.


I would compare to other resorts on the islands, other Marriott's in similar situations and resorts in HI including Marriott's and Westin's.  Location has as much or more to do with maint fees than does quality.  There's a certain amount of cost for doing things better, sooner, more upscale but that's actually a relatively small part of dues.  The dues there were actually less than some lesser resorts on the island for a similar room if you compare apples to apples as much as possible including unit size, quality, location and set up.  All the HI 2 BR units are in the $1500-1700 range including the ones that are not lockoff's.  



london said:


> It appears that many posts are from non-owners.
> 
> Perhaps we should stay out of the conversation?


Why, this affects all Marriott owners and potentially other timeshare owners as well to a lesser degree.  Even if it didn't, this is an open board.  As long as we stay reasonably on topic and don't get nasty, it shouldn't matter anyway.  As I've posted twice, they can interact with PM, emails and could start their own group on places like Yahoo.


----------



## ecwinch

Dean said:


> Don't think for a second they are not willing to walk away and divide up the resort given the right circumstances.  Just ask the Vail owners who said Marriott could not LEGALLY divide up that resort including some very in the know TUGGERS.  I doubt they would drop the contract but rather just let it expire, less controversy that way.



Great point.

Disagree on the last point though. I think faced with a militant BoD that is suing, they would use the termination provision. Common practice in litigation.


----------



## Dean

ecwinch said:


> Great point.
> 
> Disagree on the last point though. I think faced with a militant BoD that is suing, they would use the termination provision. Common practice in litigation.


I would agree they would walk away if they feel needed and justified but the more likely option is to just let it expire.  Thus I agree either is an option but lack of renewal is by far the larger risk of the 2.  While there may be an exception, I don't know off hand of any of the other options where they canceled an existing contract midstream.  I do think there were threats of that though for Beachplace during the recent conflict there.  I assume that everyone knows that the management company owns the reservation software, etc and not the resort or owners.


----------



## lovearuba

*Transparency*



ecwinch said:


> And I do not stand with MVCI. I stand against the splinter group that wants to take control of the resort. Allowing a disgruntled former BoD President whose feelings got hurt, to abuse his position and secretly support a militant faction is a violation of his fiduciary responsibilities, IMO. It poisons the whole crusade.


 
I have to disagree with you.  I thinks its unfair for folks to assume that getting transparency with what decisions are being made and what information should be made available to the owners of the resort has anything to do with people abusing their power.  There is no secret militant faction doing anything but standing up for themselves and their interest in their investment at the ocean club.  I am sorry if you feel that your resort was affected by the actions of the group wanting transparency.  The only secrecy is with Marriott not telling us what we have a right to know. 

It would worry me if I were you to think that Marriott is so afraid of exposure that they would limit communication with your BOD, you for one should be fighting to change that rather than being complacent and just complaining rather than taking action.  We choose to fight for what we believe in, your choice is obviously different.  Thus, the difference of opinion in our right to fight for a just cause.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> I have to disagree with you.  I thinks its unfair for folks to assume that getting transparency with what decisions are being made and what information should be made available to the owners of the resort has anything to do with people abusing their power.  There is no secret militant faction doing anything but standing up for themselves and their interest in their investment at the ocean club.  I am sorry if you feel that your resort was affected by the actions of the group wanting transparency.  The only secrecy is with Marriott not telling us what we have a right to know.
> 
> It would worry me if I were you to think that Marriott is so afraid of exposure that they would limit communication with your BOD, you for one should be fighting to change that rather than being complacent and just complaining rather than taking action.  We choose to fight for what we believe in, your choice is obviously different.  Thus, the difference of opinion in our right to fight for a just cause.



I do feel that at one time this crusade was actually about transparency. I think that time has passed.

But I want to keep an open mind, what steps should the BoD of the AOC take to provide you with the transparency you want?

In their last letter, they seemed to provide considerable information and the engineering report. As noted, they have issued numerous communications in regard to the concerns of the owners.

What more would you ask them to do, in order to operate in a more transparent matter? Keeping in mind that the threat of a lawsuit does constrain them in some regard.

You have received about 10 times the communication I receive from any of my resorts (both MVCI and not).


----------



## marksue

ecwinch said:


> I do feel that at one time this crusade was actually about transparency. I think that time has passed.
> 
> But I want to keep an open mind, what steps should the BoD of the AOC take to provide you with the transparency you want?
> 
> In their last letter, they seemed to provide considerable information and the engineering report. As noted, they have issued numerous communications in regard to the concerns of the owners.
> 
> What more would you ask them to do, in order to operate in a more transparent matter? Keeping in mind that the threat of a lawsuit does constrain them in some regard.
> 
> You have received about 10 times the communication I receive from any of my resorts (both MVCI and not).[/QUOTE
> 
> The bod and Marriott have refused to release all the engineering and mold inspection reports.  They have not answered the questions of the owners, which has been posted here many times.
> 
> You can think what you want; Allan did not release anything to me that was confidential.  He shared with me everything he shared with anyone that asked him regarding property I had ownership in.  At least he was willing to talk to owners which is more than I can say for the current board.
> 
> There is no transparency with the bod unless the group of owners sends out emails to mvci and Marriott.  Then we get an email from them.  This issue is about the lack of transparency and wanting a board that will fight for the owners and be open and honest with us.
> 
> We do have a lawyer that is doing everything that he needs to.  You don’t have to believe we have a lawyer but we do and he is hard at work.  Unfortunately the process is slow but we are making progress.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> ecwinch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do feel that at one time this crusade was actually about transparency. I think that time has passed.
> 
> But I want to keep an open mind, what steps should the BoD of the AOC take to provide you with the transparency you want? Please do not just say "be more transparent". What specifically do you expect a new BoD to do?
> 
> In their last letter, they seemed to provide considerable information and the engineering report. As noted, they have issued numerous communications in regard to the concerns of the owners.
> 
> What more would you ask them to do, in order to operate in a more transparent matter? Keeping in mind that the threat of a lawsuit does constrain them in some regard.
> 
> You have received about 10 times the communication I receive from any of my resorts (both MVCI and not).[/QUOTE
> 
> The bod and Marriott have refused to release all the engineering and mold inspection reports.  They have not answered the questions of the owners, which has been posted here many times.
> 
> You can think what you want; Allan did not release anything to me that was confidential.  He shared with me everything he shared with anyone that asked him regarding property I had ownership in.  At least he was willing to talk to owners which is more than I can say for the current board.
> 
> There is no transparency with the bod unless the group of owners sends out emails to mvci and Marriott.  Then we get an email from them.  This issue is about the lack of transparency and wanting a board that will fight for the owners and be open and honest with us.
> 
> We do have a lawyer that is doing everything that he needs to.  You don’t have to believe we have a lawyer but we do and he is hard at work.  Unfortunately the process is slow but we are making progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not clear how you think transparency is supposed to work. You ask a question, and you get an answer.
> 
> You keep throwing the "transparency" label around. What are they failing to do, that you would expect an "owner friendly" BoD to do?
> 
> Given the legal action you have threaten them with, I think that they are withholding the reports is a natural event. But what is the difference between the reports they have issued, and the reports that you want them to issue?
> 
> Can you e-mail me documentation of the questions that were asked of them and that they refused to answer? Did you follow-up on the request? Obviously I am not an owner, and you do not need to do this. But if you wish to silence the critics, it would help. And it does not need to be me.
> 
> Do your by-laws contain a provision to inspect the records of the association? If so, have you made a formal request to conduct an inspection of those records, in particular the reports that you are seeking?
> 
> We can disagree on the information leak issue. I think the record on that issue speaks for itself. I understand that you feel it was information that you had a right to, and that justified the act. I am not in agreement with that opinion, nor is it supported by corporate governance standards.
Click to expand...


----------



## Luckybee

While I wont begin to hash over again the many things imho I think this board is doing that shows a lack of transparency and a direct intention to prevent owners from knowing all let me give you one recent example. I just received today the letter that some owners had previously mentioned about the release of info . The letter from the BOD leaves the impression if you didnt know better that a unnamed owner and lawyer has requested names and addresses of owners for some unscrupulous purpose and that Marriott and the board in it's efforts to protect the owners wants you to indicate that you dont want your info released. While I recognize that there are privacy interests to be protected should they not have advised the owners why the info was being requested so that the owner could decide for themselves whether they wanted to receive the material from the lawyer. Quite frankly my dh and I were astounded by how misleading this correspondence was. Without question if you didnt know anything about what was happening you were left with the impression that the material was being requested for marketing purposes and of course you would ask that Marriott hold off on providing your data. No where in the correspondence was there any mention of the reason for the request, or the nature of the ongoing issues. Simply put the letter was rather bizarre ! 
You may perhaps disagree but imho this isnt right and it is another attempt by the board to hide info from the owners. Why not let the owners determine for themselves which side of the fence they wish to be on?


----------



## modoaruba

I am in agreement with luckybee.
If I did not know about this board nor have ever spoken to Allan,the letter received from Marriott is very vague and misleading.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> While I wont begin to hash over again the many things imho I think this board is doing that shows a lack of transparency and a direct intention to prevent owners from knowing all let me give you one recent example. I just received today the letter that some owners had previously mentioned about the release of info . The letter from the BOD leaves the impression if you didnt know better that a unnamed owner and lawyer has requested names and addresses of owners for some unscrupulous purpose and that Marriott and the board in it's efforts to protect the owners wants you to indicate that you dont want your info released. While I recognize that there are privacy interests to be protected should they not have advised the owners why the info was being requested so that the owner could decide for themselves whether they wanted to receive the material from the lawyer. Quite frankly my dh and I were astounded by how misleading this correspondence was. Without question if you didnt know anything about what was happening you were left with the impression that the material was being requested for marketing purposes and of course you would ask that Marriott hold off on providing your data. No where in the correspondence was there any mention of the reason for the request, or the nature of the ongoing issues. Simply put the letter was rather bizarre !
> You may perhaps disagree but imho this isnt right and it is another attempt by the board to hide info from the owners. Why not let the owners determine for themselves which side of the fence they wish to be on?



I am not trying to demean this statement or put words in your mouth. 

So when you say "transparency", it sounds to me that you mean some moral standard they should strive for. Not any specific action, like "publish BoD minutes", "regular communication", or "allowing owners to speak at BoD meetings". A guiding principle of sorts. Which is fine, but is extremely subjective without specific guidelines on how that should govern their actions.

Because, while I understand your opinion regarding the letter you discuss, I think it is reasonable to deduce that you read it with the bias of your position and your knowledge of the crusade.

Likewise, I think you can see that the BoD is asking how you would like them to protect your privacy information. And the response will set forth the BoD's policy for all future requests, not just the one at hand. 

Of course you would consent to the release to Mark's group.

But what happens when what they describe happens. When owners start getting marketing material from PCC's, and it gets traced back to a request for the AOC members list?  Sure some will go - "I get that now". But some people get very hostile about such things. 

You see it as an attempt to "scare" owners into not consenting to release their info. It very well be. But it also represents the BoD being diligent in informing members of the consequences of their decision. 

And to the question of should they clearly state that Mark has made the request, his reason for doing so, and such. I do not think so. I suspect the lawyers would have prevented that information from being provided.

I do agree that the letter should be balanced. A paragraph stating that "by declining, members will not able to be contacted by other members regarding association business"

But maybe that is there, or something similar.


----------



## Luckybee

No actually I do want other things but I didnt see the point in getting into the same old same old again ! For starters I want to have the ability to contact a board member if I have a problem with my resort not the GM. Let me tell you why. A number of years ago dh and I had a specific problem while at the resort. It was not handled well by onsite management. When we got home we contacted Mr Cohen who followed up with Marriott for us and the issue was immediately dealt with. The GM at the time had not followed up at all as he said he would have. As I said I could go on and on about what I'd like to see but that wasnt my point in this post. 

The letter should definitely have been balanced. It wasnt without doubt. Here is what it said(excuse the typos if any) (the bolding and underlines are the way the letter looked not my emphasis):

Dear MAOC owner

As you may know on May 15 2009, the Annual General Membership meeting of the cooperative Vereniging Marriott Vacation Club international of Aruba (the association) was held and three board members were elected. The draft annual meeting minutes have been posted on the resort page of my vacation club.com as well as our dedicated website arubaoceanclub.com. Since then , we have been working diligently on several important issues. 

*The board has the duty to inform you of the following development that requires your urgent attention .*

An individual member has recently instructed an attorney in Aruba to notify the association of the members intention to sue the association before the court in Aruba if the board does not provide all of the *names* and *personal correspondence addresses* of the associations 8570 members to this individual member or his attorney . The board has the duty to consider all possible scenarios and is very reluctant to provide to provide your personal information such as name and personal addresses ( as currently on file) in light of possible misuse of such information, privacy considerations, and *the real possibility of the personal information of our 8570 members getting into the hands of, for example , telemarketers or the personal information being improperly handled or distributed .*

While privacy laws in the United States may protect your personal information from being made public, the board has to take into account that the association may be compelled by an Aruban court to release and transfer members personal data. For this reason, we are giving you the opportunity(by means of checking a box and signing the attached declaration), to indicate whether or not you authorize or do not authorize having your personal data as described above shared with individual members who may request your personal information. *If you do not want your information shared with individual members, please check the appropriate box on the attached declaration and we will try, as much as possible to honour your request.*

Sincerely,

Your board members
(signed, again without contact info)

Now tell me would it have truly been that difficult to add something such as "for issues pertaining to the resort" after  an individual member has contacted the association to obtain the list, or some similiar such wording. Again you may not agree but I have shown this letter to a number people today , none of whom were aware of this situation and they all had the same impression as did I , that is that the letter seems to indicate that the board is attempting to shield the members from some untoward(fraudulent or otherwise) activity. No one got the impression that the request had anything to do with ownership interest issues. I hate to use the words scare tactics as I personally think those are words that should go into the list of overused words in Northa America but this is one situation where I truly think it is the only appropriate phrase.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> No actually I do want other things but I didnt see the point in getting into the same old same old again ! For starters I want to have the ability to contact a board member if I have a problem with my resort not the GM. Let me tell you why. A number of years ago dh and I had a specific problem while at the resort. It was not handled well by onsite management. When we got home we contacted Mr Cohen who followed up with Marriott for us and the issue was immediately dealt with. The GM at the time had not followed up at all as he said he would have. As I said I could go on and on about what I'd like to see but that wasnt my point in this post.
> 
> The letter should definitely have been balanced. It wasnt without doubt. Here is what it said(excuse the typos if any) (the bolding and underlines are the way the letter looked not my emphasis):
> 
> Dear MAOC owner
> 
> As you may know on May 15 2009, the Annual General Membership meeting of the cooperative Vereniging Marriott Vacation Club international of Aruba (the association) was held and three board members were elected. The draft annual meeting minutes have been posted on the resort page of my vacation club.com as well as our dedicated website arubaoceanclub.com. Since then , we have been working diligently on several important issues.
> 
> *The board has the duty to inform you of the following development that requires your urgent attention .*
> 
> An individual member has recently instructed an attorney in Aruba to notify the association of the members intention to sue the association before the court in Aruba if the board does not provide all of the *names* and *personal correspondence addresses* of the associations 8570 members to this individual member or his attorney . The board has the duty to consider all possible scenarios and is very reluctant to provide to provide your personal information such as name and personal addresses ( as currently on file) in light of possible misuse of such information, privacy considerations, and *the real possibility of the personal information of our 8570 members getting into the hands of, for example , telemarketers or the personal information being improperly handled or distributed .*
> 
> While privacy laws in the United States may protect your personal information from being made public, the board has to take into account that the association may be compelled by an Aruban court to release and transfer members personal data. For this reason, we are giving you the opportunity(by means of checking a box and signing the attached declaration), to indicate whether or not you authorize or do not authorize having your personal data as described above shared with individual members who may request your personal information. *If you do not want your information shared with individual members, please check the appropriate box on the attached declaration and we will try, as much as possible to honour your request.*
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Your board members
> (signed, again without contact info)
> 
> Now tell me would it have truly been that difficult to add something such as "for issues pertaining to the resort" after  an individual member has contacted the association to obtain the list, or some similiar such wording. Again you may not agree but I have shown this letter to a number people today , none of whom were aware of this situation and they all had the same impression as did I , that is that the letter seems to indicate that the board is attempting to shield the members from some untoward(fraudulent or otherwise) activity. No one got the impression that the request had anything to do with ownership interest issues. I hate to use the words scare tactics as I personally think those are words that should go into the list of overused words in Northa America but this is one situation where I truly think it is the only appropriate phrase.



Consider the risk that the BOD would be assuming if they did include even your generic, "for issues pertaining to the resort" and the owners made a determination based on that to allow the release of their information.  But then at some point down the road - months? years?  doesn't matter - by some accidental or malicious action, the list is released to someone who uses it for something not related to, "issues pertaining to the resort?"

Can't you envision the slightest possibility of that happening?  I can.  And if it does, then what level of risk would the BOD have assumed by stating in that letter that the list will be released only, "for issues pertaining to the resort?"

I completely understand the deliberate omission of the reason that the owners' information has been requested, as well as the deliberate warnings of the consequences that could result from the owners' information being released.  The BOD is protecting itself as best it can in the event of any future related legal issues, those that are apparent and those that are not.  That's what I would expect anyway, but considering the history at this specific resort, I would be shocked if the letter was any different.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Consider the risk that the BOD would be assuming if they did include even your generic, "for issues pertaining to the resort" and the owners made a determination based on that to allow the release of their information.  But then at some point down the road - months? years?  doesn't matter - by some accidental or malicious action, the list is released to someone who uses it for something not related to, "issues pertaining to the resort?"
> 
> Can't you envision the slightest possibility of that happening?  I can.  And if it does, then what level of risk would the BOD have assumed by stating in that letter that the list will be released only, "for issues pertaining to the resort?"
> 
> I completely understand the deliberate omission of the reason that the owners' information has been requested, as well as the deliberate warnings of the consequences that could result from the owners' information being released.  The BOD is protecting itself as best it can in the event of any future related legal issues, those that are apparent and those that are not.  That's what I would expect anyway, but considering the history at this specific resort, I would be shocked if the letter was any different.



I remember a few years ago the front desk or Marriott(I do not recall) compromised our credit cards. 
Can any body else recall the exact specifics?

The point being,what on earth could the list given to this group be done with to be so diabolical?

The credit card issue was resolved after I got a call from VISA that my physical card was being used in Venezuela.Obviously it was a forgery.
Here was a definite risk of identity theft.The risk is not present by obtaining a list of owners.


----------



## Luckybee

(sorry this was in response to Sue but I didnt post fast enough ))
Ok I'll bite.  If I accept your arguement(which I dont because I believe this wording was done in a way to intentionally be misleading to give Marriott ammunition wwhen they go into court to be able to say "all our members signed that they didnt want the info divulged) but lets just say I accept your argument . There are ways of handling that too. For example "this request is being made for issues pertaining to the resort but we cannot guarantee that misuse would not be made of the information in the future" or something similiar. At least then they would not be leaving the wrong impression in the first place . I also think that if a court does order the release of the info this letter isnt going to protect Marriott because a judge would find that the letter offends the spirit of  an honest and fair attempt to ascertain the owners wishes.


----------



## Luckybee

modoaruba said:


> I remember a few years ago the front desk or Marriott(I do not recall) compromised our credit cards.
> Can any body else recall the exact specifics?
> 
> The point being,what on earth could the list given to this group be done with to be so diabolical?
> 
> The credit card issue was resolved after I got a call from VISA that my physical card was being used in Venezuela.Obviously it was a forgery.
> Here was a definite risk of identity theft.The risk is not present by obtaining a list of owners.




Yep Marriott "lost" thousands of owners computer info including names, addresses, loan info, bankiand most importantly *credit card numbers, and security codes*etc. They provided identity protection for a year  (I think a year?) to those owners who were compromised.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> I remember a few years ago the front desk or Marriott(I do not recall) compromised our credit cards.
> Can any body else recall the exact specifics?
> 
> The point being,what on earth could the list given to this group be done with to be so diabolical?
> 
> The credit card issue was resolved after I got a call from VISA that my physical card was being used in Venezuela.Obviously it was a forgery.
> Here was a definite risk of identity theft.The risk is not present by obtaining a list of owners.



I don't remember anything with Marriott, but a few years ago our debit card (with VISA logo) information was compromised, along with a couple thousand others, by BJ's Wholesale Club when an employee hacked into the system and sold the info.  We didn't know it until the bank called to tell us that there had been suspicious out-of-state charges over the last two days totalling $3K-plus.  The bank had us file a report with the local police dept and fill out some forms, then credited our account for all of the fraudulent charges.  A couple months later the police contacted us to tell us that a criminal complaint was being filed against the former BJ's employee, and we should notify BJ's in writing of our experience because our case was probably related.  We did, and never heard another word about it.

My point is, we are as much protected by privacy laws (which allow for relatively simple credits of fraudulent charges and cross-referencing fraudulent complaints) as we are hindered by them.  Companies can only take so many steps to protect our personal and financial data from getting into the wrong hands.  No matter how much they do, the bad guys manage to circumvent all the protections and wreak havoc anyway.  It's a sad commentary on the world we live in, sure, but because of the bad guys it's necessary to have privacy laws.  And as long as we do, any company has no choice but to follow them.  The fallout, though, means that what's been legislated to protect us can also make what appears to be very simple, very difficult.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> I remember a few years ago the front desk or Marriott(I do not recall) compromised our credit cards.
> Can any body else recall the exact specifics?
> 
> The point being,what on earth could the list given to this group be done with to be so diabolical?
> 
> The credit card issue was resolved after I got a call from VISA that my physical card was being used in Venezuela.Obviously it was a forgery.
> Here was a definite risk of identity theft.The risk is not present by obtaining a list of owners.



I respect and value your opinion, but I do not understand how the prior compromise lessens the responsibility of the AOC BoD to protect your information.

The BoD is forced to set and establish policies to deal with the current request, and all future requests. They cannot grant Mark's request, and then arbitratraley refuse the next one.

They do not have a reduced fiduciary responsibility to the members simply because you agree with the group making the request.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> (sorry this was in response to Sue but I didnt post fast enough ))
> Ok I'll bite.  If I accept your arguement(which I dont because I believe this wording was done in a way to intentionally be misleading to give Marriott ammunition wwhen they go into court to be able to say "all our members signed that they didnt want the info divulged) but lets just say I accept your argument . There are ways of handling that too. For example "this request is being made for issues pertaining to the resort but we cannot guarantee that misuse would not be made of the information in the future" or something similiar. At least then they would not be leaving the wrong impression in the first place . I also think that if a court does order the release of the info this letter isnt going to protect Marriott because a judge would find that the letter offends the spirit of  an honest and fair attempt to ascertain the owners wishes.



Except it may be possible that the BOD suffers under some other constraint that would prohibit them from telling the ownership the reason the request has been made.  I don't know, which is why I wouldn't automatically assume that their reason for the tone of the letter is to threaten the ownership and/or subvert Allan's request.

I do agree, though, that checking the box and signing the declaration letter may not protect against the owners information being released if court-ordered, but maybe for a different reason than you think.  If it's any consolation, the "... and we will try, as much as possible to honour your request. ..." phrase contained in the BOD's letter makes me think that they're not entirely sure either.  Or, that's just another tactic to cover themselves.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> No actually I do want other things but I didnt see the point in getting into the same old same old again ! For starters I want to have the ability to contact a board member if I have a problem with my resort not the GM. Let me tell you why. A number of years ago dh and I had a specific problem while at the resort. It was not handled well by onsite management. When we got home we contacted Mr Cohen who followed up with Marriott for us and the issue was immediately dealt with. The GM at the time had not followed up at all as he said he would have. As I said I could go on and on about what I'd like to see but that wasnt my point in this post.



I think we now are getting to the core of some of the issues. Let me offer one explaination:

I think part of this goes to your expectation of how you view the duties and obligations of a member of the BoD. In the example you cited, Mr Cohen acted as your personal ombudsmen in resolving an issue regarding an issue at the resort.

Step back for a moment. What was the legal basis for Mr Cohen's actions?  Is he empowered by the by-laws of the AOC to unilaterally investigate and seek resolutions of a members issues?

Here is the Wikipedia definition of a BoD. I use it because it is accessible, not because it is authorative:

_A board of directors is a body of elected or appointed members who *jointly oversee* the activities of a company or organization. The body sometimes has a different name, such as board of trustees, board of governors, board of managers, or executive board. It is often simply referred to as "the board."
A board's activities are determined by the powers, duties, and responsibilities delegated to it or conferred on it by an authority outside itself. These matters are typically detailed in the organization's bylaws. The bylaws commonly also specify the number of members of the board, how they are to be chosen, and when they are to meet._

Notice one thing major thing in the definition that I highlighted. "Jointly". 

A BoD is supposed to act in concert. Being a BoD member does not grant a license to dictate anything to the GM of the resort. If there was a problem, and the policy/procedure of the AOC was not being properly adhered to, then that is business for the BoD to address. Mr. Cohen has no authority to act unilaterally in such a manner, unless you can provide me with the specific provision of your by-laws that grants each member of the BoD that authority.

BoD's have to work jointly. This example just reinforces my opinion that Mr. Cohen felt that his authority was far greater than what it was.

Individual BoD members do not run the resort. They set the procedures and policies of the resort, that MVCI follows in the resort operation.

This the same reason that you cannot communicate directly with a BoD member in an official capacity, without that communication being recorded by the BoD. Imagine the liability the BoD would incur if they permitted such communication.

You could report illegal activity at the resort to an individual BoD member, and that BoD member could, either purposedly or unintentional, fail to act on your report Maybe they are involved. But their failure to act, creates the grounds for the HOA to be sued. That is not a viable process.

It also creates an opportunity for a rogue BoD member to exceed his authority and inject himself into the day-to-day operations of the resort. If you set the precedent of that being permissable, keep in mind where it can be used to harm you also. And what if the rest of the BoD disagreed with the action of one member. How do you address that?


----------



## Dean

SueDonJ said:


> Except it may be possible that the BOD suffers under some other constraint that would prohibit them from telling the ownership the reason the request has been made.  I don't know, which is why I wouldn't automatically assume that their reason for the tone of the letter is to threaten the ownership and/or subvert Allan's request.
> 
> I do agree, though, that checking the box and signing the declaration letter may not protect against the owners information being released if court-ordered, but maybe for a different reason than you think.  If it's any consolation, the "... and we will try, as much as possible to honour your request. ..." phrase contained in the BOD's letter makes me think that they're not entirely sure either.  Or, that's just another tactic to cover themselves.


Looking at a legal challenge to the resort, MVCI and the current BOD; they need to be very careful with anything they send out.  It's likely everything is reviewed by lawyers prior to being sent out and in this case, even more so than normal.  They are not going to try to do justice to the other side, they are going to word things in such a way as to garner the support of the owners for their position and against the opposition.  

Also as Eric noted, "more transparency" is a vague statement that ultimately has no meaning.  You have to lay out specific items of how to be more transparent.  As I noted before, I doubt any of such changes would satisfy those complaining at this point.  Also, even if a totally new BOD is seated, it's unlikely it'll be a group and in such a way that those complaining will truly be satisfied.  IF Marriott remains involved, they will control the process for any changes as well.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> I respect and value your opinion, but I do not understand how the prior compromise lessens the responsibility of the AOC BoD to protect your information.
> 
> The BoD is forced to set and establish policies to deal with the current request, and all future requests. They cannot grant Mark's request, and then arbitratraley refuse the next one.
> 
> They do not have a reduced fiduciary responsibility to the members simply because you agree with the group making the request.



The comparison was made not to justify the request but to minimize it's potential intent in the scheme of things.
If anybody read the letter without prior knowledge,how would it be taken?

(task for today--show the letter to a friend,family member,coworker,etc.
in other words,someone who doesn't know what Marriott or Aruba is,and let them tell you what the letter says to them).

I am not taking sides here,but think that the request is fair and by Marriott sending this letter shows the intent of diverting the attention away from the transparancy this group hopes to accomplish.


----------



## ecwinch

And in the example you cite, I think you are asking for accessibility, not transparency. I have yet to hear what they can do to provide more transparency. 

Significant distinction.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> (task for today--show the letter to a friend,family member,coworker,etc.
> in other words,someone who doesn't know what Marriott or Aruba is,and let them tell you what the letter says to them).
> 
> I am not taking sides here,but think that the request is fair and by Marriott sending this letter shows the intent of diverting the attention away from the transparancy this group hopes to accomplish.



After you ask them what it says, then ask them if they think the letter is an attempt by the board to be less transparent in their operation.

Why do you think the statement about potential outcomes that they make is inaccurate?

I think certain people are reading into the letter that the BoD is saying - "look if we give Mark the list, he will give it to telemarketers".

They do not say that. YOU are making that assertion.

Look the part " The board has the duty to consider *all possible scenarios* "


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> I think we now are getting to the core of some of the issues. Let me offer one explaination:
> 
> I think part of this goes to your expectation of how you view the duties and obligations of a member of the BoD. In the example you cited, Mr Cohen acted as your personal ombudsmen in resolving an issue regarding an issue at the resort.
> 
> Step back for a moment. What was the legal basis for Mr Cohen's actions?  Is he empowered by the by-laws of the AOC to unilaterally investigate and seek resolutions of a members issues?
> 
> Here is the Wikipedia definition of a BoD. I use it because it is accessible, not because it is authorative:
> 
> _A board of directors is a body of elected or appointed members who *jointly oversee* the activities of a company or organization. The body sometimes has a different name, such as board of trustees, board of governors, board of managers, or executive board. It is often simply referred to as "the board."
> A board's activities are determined by the powers, duties, and responsibilities delegated to it or conferred on it by an authority outside itself. These matters are typically detailed in the organization's bylaws. The bylaws commonly also specify the number of members of the board, how they are to be chosen, and when they are to meet._
> 
> Notice one thing major thing in the definition that I highlighted. "Jointly".
> 
> A BoD is supposed to act in concert. Being a BoD member does not grant a license to dictate anything to the GM of the resort. If there was a problem, and the policy/procedure of the AOC was not being properly adhered to, then that is business for the BoD to address. Mr. Cohen has no authority to act unilaterally in such a manner, unless you can provide me with the specific provision of your by-laws that grants each member of the BoD that authority.
> 
> BoD's have to work jointly. This example just reinforces my opinion that Mr. Cohen felt that his authority was far greater than what it was.
> 
> Individual BoD members do not run the resort. They set the procedures and policies of the resort, that MVCI follows in the resort operation.
> 
> This the same reason that you cannot communicate directly with a BoD member in an official capacity, without that communication being recorded by the BoD. Imagine the liability the BoD would incur if they permitted such communication.
> 
> You could report illegal activity at the resort to an individual BoD member, and that BoD member could, either purposedly or unintentional, fail to act on your report Maybe they are involved. But their failure to act, creates the grounds for the HOA to be sued. That is not a viable process.
> 
> It also creates an opportunity for a rogue BoD member to exceed his authority and inject himself into the day-to-day operations of the resort. If you set the precedent of that being permissable, keep in mind where it can be used to harm you also. And what if the rest of the BoD disagreed with the action of one member. How do you address that?




Well than I guess Marriott was acting without authority as welll when they use to say "please feel free to contact any of your elected board members for any issues you may have regarding your resort experience " Funny how when it worked for them that is exactly what they wanted and then when it didnt  ie: they were no longer getting positive feedback about evrything they were doing then the cloak of silence went up. Allan used to liase with Marriott over numerous issues on behalf on the owners. Marriott wanted it that way so that they werent getting calls from ea individual owner. The other bod members actually wanted it that way as well. Funny how it use to work for hmmm lets see...every year since the property opened until he decided to question the actions of Marriott

But you have me doing exactly what I said I wouldnt and that is rehash the same stuff....I see no purpose in doing so...on those issues I prefer to wait and see what comes out of the case


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> And in the example you cite, I think you are asking for accessibility, not transparency. I have yet to hear what they can do to provide more transparency.
> 
> Significant distinction.



Transparancy might not be the entire propper terminology to use. But I would think that any party that we give money to to run our property,should be forefront with what they plan to do,how they will do it and at what cost.
If issues come up such as the roof, I expect any report made by any party to be given to me.
In other words I want an honest and open and accessable BOD that I can rely on to do the right thing with our monies.
When you ask what more they can do,well,they can reveal the studies that were conducted on the roof and mold issues.
If all the studies were shown to be that no problems exist,so be it.
Don't I have a right as an owner to know how my property is doing?
The BOD represents me. I should be entitled to communicate directly with them.
The GM and staff are my employees.They are not my representatives.

All that is wanted is assurance that the right thing is being done The openess would allow checks and balances to assure that everything runs kosher.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> Transparancy might not be the entire propper terminology to use. But I would think that any party that we give money to to run our property,should be forefront with what they plan to do,how they will do it and at what cost.
> If issues come up such as the roof, I expect any report made by any party to be given to me.
> In other words I want an honest and open and accessable BOD that I can rely on to do the right thing with our monies.
> When you ask what more they can do,well,they can reveal the studies that were conducted on the roof and mold issues.
> If all the studies were shown to be that no problems exist,so be it.
> Don't I have a right as an owner to know how my property is doing?
> The BOD represents me. I should be entitled to communicate directly with them.
> The GM and staff are my employees.They are not my representatives.
> 
> All that is wanted is assurance that the right thing is being done The openess would allow checks and balances to assure that everything runs kosher.



But the BOD was elected to perform certain functions, among them I would think is the review of such things as those roof and mold reports, and then vote among themselves as to what actions should be taken as a result of their review. If you did have access to everything the same as the BOD, what would you be authorized to do with it?  Nothing, really, except maybe let your BOD know what your opinion is and ask them to act with your opinion in mind.  You've agreed to the system in place whereby the BOD represents the ownership by virtue of your purchase, haven't you?

As far as communicating directly with the BOD, I don't understand why you folks maintain that you can't.  Granted, you don't have access to the individual member's email addresses or telephone numbers, but you do have an email address which has been established for the sole purpose of owner/BOD communication.  Granted, again, your BOD is constrained by the previous legal threats against them as to what they may be able to discuss, at least until all of these issues are resolved, but there's no reason why any owners shouldn't be able to use that email address to contact the BOD with an unrelated concern similar to the one Luckybee mentioned here.


----------



## lovearuba

ecwinch said:


> After you ask them what it says, then ask them if they think the letter is an attempt by the board to be less transparent in their operation.
> 
> Why do you think the statement about potential outcomes that they make is inaccurate?
> 
> I think certain people are reading into the letter that the BoD is saying - "look if we give Mark the list, he will give it to telemarketers".
> 
> They do not say that. YOU are making that assertion.
> 
> Look the part " The board has the duty to consider *all possible scenarios* "


 
Marriott knows who requested the information and should have been upfront and stated it.  They intentionally left it out to serve their own needs.  It was an intentional effort to delay the effort and its not the end of the story.  Marriott is deceitful, dishonest and has no regard for owners, just the almighty dollar.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Well than I guess Marriott was acting without authority as welll when they use to say "please feel free to contact any of your elected board members for any issues you may have regarding your resort experience " Funny how when it worked for them that is exactly what they wanted and then when it didnt  ie: they were no longer getting positive feedback about evrything they were doing then the cloak of silence went up. Allan used to liase with Marriott over numerous issues on behalf on the owners. Marriott wanted it that way so that they werent getting calls from ea individual owner. The other bod members actually wanted it that way as well. Funny how it use to work for hmmm lets see...every year since the property opened until he decided to question the actions of Marriott
> 
> But you have me doing exactly what I said I wouldnt and that is rehash the same stuff....I see no purpose in doing so...on those issues I prefer to wait and see what comes out of the case



This is just your bias coming through. Policies and procedures of organizations change all the time. Organizations recognize problems, and make changes according. It is part of the ever-changing world we live in. Allan, by his actions was a problem, for the reasons I outlined.

HOA Governance standards are evolving all the time. It is a relatively new field  in corporate law. Many issues are those of first impression.

I note you fail to even address one of the points I made. It is disappointing when you fail to ignore all the logic that does not support your one-sided view of the world.

So you do not want a BoD member, you want a ombudsmen.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> If all the studies were shown to be that no problems exist,so be it.
> Don't I have a right as an owner to know how my property is doing?
> The BOD represents me. I should be entitled to communicate directly with them.
> The GM and staff are my employees.They are not my representatives.



I think you have the right to all the documents regarding the resort. What was the response they gave YOU when YOU asked for them?

In replying, please only tell me what you have done, OR the written response from AOC/MVCI that you have seen on this issue from a request from another member. No heresy.

I absolutely think you have the right to communicate with your BoD. But I fail to understand how their policy of asking that communication be forwarded to the AOC GM impedes that right. 

I see this as an efficient utilization of resources. You see it as MVCI filtering communication with the BoD. Why do you assume that none of the correspondence for the BoD reaches them?

Yes, this is a change in policy. But tell me why - given my previous points - it is wrong or incorrect.


----------



## ecwinch

Follow-on:

Obviously you have the right to communicate with your US Representative to the House, right?

Now when you send him an e-mail, do you think he reads each and every one?

Or does a staffer?

If the staffer resolves your question, without getting the Representative involved, is that a violation of your right to communicate with your Representative?

How is this any different? 

Beyond the fact that BoD standards have changed a lot in the last 10 years. BoD have far more responsibility and liability under recent governance statutes. Change happens.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> I think you have the right to all the documents regarding the resort. What was the response they gave YOU when YOU asked for them?
> 
> In replying, please only tell me what you have done, OR the written response from AOC/MVCI that you have seen on this issue from a request from another member. No heresy.
> 
> I absolutely think you have the right to communicate with your BoD. But I fail to understand how their policy of asking that communication be forwarded to the AOC GM impedes that right.
> 
> I see this as an efficient utilization of resources. You see it as MVCI filtering communication with the BoD. Why do you assume that none of the correspondence for the BoD reaches them?
> 
> Yes, this is a change in policy. But tell me why - given my previous points - it is wrong or incorrect.



I have never asked the BOD of anything.
I am just bringing to light what others have posted regarding their concerns with no communication to THEM.
When I use the word I,I'm implying any owner.
It seems the letter we got from Allan regarding many concerns,that no answers were given as to why it is this way from Marriott nor the BOD.
By answers I do not mean what owners want to hear,but any honest answer.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> I have never asked the BOD of anything.
> I am just bringing to light what others have posted regarding their concerns with no communication to THEM.
> When I use the word I,I'm implying any owner.
> It seems the letter we got from Allan regarding many concerns,that no answers were given as to why it is this way from Marriott nor the BOD.
> By answers I do not mean what owners want to hear,but any honest answer.



If you have not personally experienced this, or do not have firm evidence that supports the accounts of the other posters, how do you know it to be true?

And not embellished to solicit your support?

Do you know that Allan sent the letter to MVCI and the AOC? 

Is it possible that he wrote if for the consumption of those here on TUG, and the BoD or MVCI has never seen it? Or that he has received a reply.

And if you are interested in the answer to the questions he posed, then why not send the same letter? Or a letter asking for the BoD response to his letter? Everytime I asked to see the proof, I got "he does not have to give you anything, you do not own there".

I would personally require a higher standard in regard to authenicating the statements of others. Particularly on an issue that is so important.

The BoD members are owners also. Why would they seek out BoD office, and then fail to protect the interests of the same group they belong to? In essence taking actions that will hurt them. For they will not be BoD members forever.

I think some fell too easy for this notion that the BoD is only interested in protecting MVCI.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> If you have not personally experienced this, or do not have firm evidence that supports the accounts of the other posters, how do you know it to be true?
> 
> And not embellished to solicit your support?
> 
> Do you know that Allan sent the letter to MVCI and the AOC?
> 
> Is it possible that he wrote if for the consumption of those here on TUG, and the BoD or MVCI has never seen it? Or that he has received a reply.
> 
> And if you are interested in the answer to the questions he posed, then why not send the same letter? Or a letter asking for the BoD response to his letter? Everytime I asked to see the proof, I got "he does not have to give you anything, you do not own there".
> 
> I would personally require a higher standard in regard to authenicating the statements of others. Particularly on an issue that is so important.
> 
> The BoD members are owners also. Why would they seek out BoD office, and then fail to protect the interests of the same group they belong to? In essence taking actions that will hurt them. For they will not be BoD members forever.
> 
> I think some fell too easy for this notion that the BoD is only interested in protecting MVCI.



I accept your challange.
I have to scroll back a ways to find Allan's letter.
(if anybody knows the post# to save me time?)
I will forward to the BOD and ask them to respond item by item.
How's that?


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> ... (task for today--show the letter to a friend,family member,coworker,etc.
> in other words,someone who doesn't know what Marriott or Aruba is,and let them tell you what the letter says to them). ...



Okay, Modo, I did the homework assignment and between it and the news today that David Ortiz' name is on that list of players who tested positive for PED in 2003, now my husband is wandering around muttering under his breath.  Here's how it went:

me:  You know how there are resorts in Aruba?  What would you think if you were an owner there and got this letter from your BOD?

Don:  (reads, tosses it back to me)  This is why you don't buy at an international resort.

me:  <rolling eyes>  Yes, and ...?

Don:  Are you kidding me?  They better not let my info get released to another owner!  That's why we have privacy laws - they apply to Americans even if the resort is in Aruba.  I think?

me:  (trying not to ask leading questions) Okay, but what would you DO?  What do you think about the whole thing?

Don:  I'd check the 'no' box and sign it and return it, and then I'd send a copy of this letter and the signed thing to the CEO with a letter saying that they better be on top of whatever this is about, using the best attorneys that they can afford to prevent my info from being released.

me:  Buuuut .... (still trying) .... any other concerns?

Don:  Yeah.  I'd also tell them that it better not cost me anything for them to defend against whoever this owner is that has a problem with them.

me:  (giving up on trying to not ask leading questions) But, don't you wonder what's behind this?  Don't you want to know if something is happening at your resort?

Don:  Yep, and that's why I'd go right to the CEO for the answers. 

So there you go.  But I was surprised by that answer so a little while later I told him that this was the resort that was hit with a huge increase in m/f and a special assessment, and an owner believes that he has information that the entire ownership might be interested in and he's trying to get the list from Marriott so that he can send it out.

His response:  Let him fight his own battles.  I like what Marriott does and I like Aruba.  :hysterical: 

And of course I had to laugh with him, because we've never been there.

But like I said, now he's mumbling under his breath about the media and steroids and privacy laws and maybe going to Aruba someday.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Okay, Modo, I did the homework assignment and between it and the news today that David Ortiz' name is on that list of players who tested positive for PED in 2003, now my husband is wandering around muttering under his breath.  Here's how it went:
> 
> me:  You know how there are resorts in Aruba?  What would you think if you were an owner there and got this letter from your BOD?
> 
> Don:  (reads, tosses it back to me)  This is why you don't buy at an international resort.
> 
> me:  <rolling eyes>  Yes, and ...?
> 
> Don:  Are you kidding me?  They better not let my info get released to another owner!  That's why we have privacy laws - they apply to Americans even if the resort is in Aruba.  I think?
> 
> me:  (trying not to ask leading questions) Okay, but what would you DO?  What do you think about the whole thing?
> 
> Don:  I'd check the 'no' box and sign it and return it, and then I'd send a copy of this letter and the signed thing to the CEO with a letter saying that they better be on top of whatever this is about, using the best attorneys that they can afford to prevent my info from being released.
> 
> me:  Buuuut .... (still trying) .... any other concerns?
> 
> Don:  Yeah.  I'd also tell them that it better not cost me anything for them to defend against whoever this owner is that has a problem with them.
> 
> me:  (giving up on trying to not ask leading questions) But, don't you wonder what's behind this?  Don't you want to know if something is happening at your resort?
> 
> Don:  Yep, and that's why I'd go right to the CEO for the answers.
> 
> So there you go.  But I was surprised by that answer so a little while later I told him that this was the resort that was hit with a huge increase in m/f and a special assessment, and an owner believes that he has information that the entire ownership might be interested in and he's trying to get the list from Marriott so that he can send it out.
> 
> His response:  Let him fight his own battles.  I like what Marriott does and I like Aruba.  :hysterical:
> 
> And of course I had to laugh with him, because we've never been there.
> 
> But like I said, now he's mumbling under his breath about the media and steroids and privacy laws and maybe going to Aruba someday.



You proved the point that the letter's design could only illicit such a response.
How clever.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> You proved the point that the letter's design could only illicit such a response.
> How clever.



Did I?  Or did my husband prove the point that owners can have enough faith in Marriott, because of their own dealings with them, to believe that a single owner's concerns/problems with a resort should be dealt with by that single owner?  That's his thought, anyway, even after I told him that Mark/Allan believe that they have important information.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Did I?  Or did my husband prove the point that owners can have enough faith in Marriott, because of their own dealings with them, to believe that a single owner's concerns/problems with a resort should be dealt with by that single owner?  That's his thought, anyway, even after I told him that Mark/Allan believe that they have important information.



The letter does not give enough unbiased direction to come to your conclusion.
I am sure if the group would send their own letter out, it would be skewed in their own direction.
If I did not know about this group I would probably,no,definitly, have the same response as Don.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> I accept your challange.
> I have to scroll back a ways to find Allan's letter.
> (if anybody knows the post# to save me time?)
> I will forward to the BOD and ask them to respond item by item.
> How's that?



I think that is a great step to dispel some of the speculation.

I also, know that Mark's actions are going to impede their ability to provide answers on all the points. 

But I think it is a good evalution of the question at hand. Nothing like facts to dispel idle speculation.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> You proved the point that the letter's design could only illicit such a response.
> How clever.





modoaruba said:


> The letter does not give enough unbiased direction to come to your conclusion.
> I am sure if the group would send their own letter out, it would be skewed in their own direction.
> If I did not know about this group I would probably,no,definitly, have the same response as Don.



Honestly, Modo, your "how clever" has thrown me for a loop.  After a little bit of time to think, I want to first say I'm sorry if you thought that my post with mine and my husband's conversation was too flippant or light or something "off" and you were offended by it.  That wasn't at all my intent but I can see how it could be thought so.  It honestly was the way the conversation went.

As for the letter eliciting the expected response based on how it's written, well, I'll disagree with you there for a couple of reasons.  One reason is that we're, all of us, inundated these days with reminders and notices from practically every company with which we do business about the actions they are taking to prevent identity theft.  They have to do that, it's a requirement of all that legislation.  But because we're bombarded with it, it's only natural that privacy and identity theft protections are at the forefront of our minds.  Even before Luckybee posted the letter for us here, I guessed that identity theft protection was the reason behind the letter's warnings.  The second reason, for us personally, is that I expected Don's first reaction to be "no they won't release my information!" because we've been victims of theft in the past, just as you have.

As for the other conclusion, some folks really do have faith in Marriott/MVCI as a good company because of their personal dealings with the company.  It is true for Don and I'll bet for a majority of their resort owners.  Consider that this thread has had more than forty times more views than posts - 80,159 v 1,835.  Some of those views-only are no doubt made by those of us who are active participants.  But don't you wonder how many MAOC owners have stopped by here and wandered away uninterested, or how many are following closely without posting or joining the cause?  Some of them, I'd guess, have more faith in Marriott/MVCI than Allan or Mark.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> The letter does not give enough unbiased direction to come to your conclusion.
> I am sure if the group would send their own letter out, it would be skewed in their own direction.
> If I did not know about this group I would probably,no,definitly, have the same response as Don.



Modo, I really respect that you are seemingly one of the few "crusaders" that seems be able to at least see the other side of the argument. I like the fact that you do not just make drive by posts and are willing to have a reasonable discussion of facts. 

That not every third post is, "well I am tired of talking about it". That you stay engaged.

But I have to call foul here. You asked us to perform a test. Sue did and reported the results in great detail. A report from some crusaders doing the same would probably have been "my wife thinks MVCI has ruined their reputation by sending out this letter. What do they have to hide?", omitting the fact that they only showed it to their dog.

I appreciate that you do not like the outcome. I want to make sure I give the test a fair shake when I perform it. What did Sue do or fail to do in her test?

I am scratching my head on this one.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Marriott knows who requested the information and should have been upfront and stated it.  They intentionally left it out to serve their own needs.  It was an intentional effort to delay the effort and its not the end of the story.  Marriott is deceitful, dishonest and has no regard for owners, just the almighty dollar.



Why would a company that is only concerned about the almighty dollar, agree to provide interest free financing to the resort so that the assessment can be spread over two years?


----------



## modoaruba

"how clever" meant that Marriott was clever in their wording to inspire responses like Don's to those who know nothing.
I say this because that's the way I would have taken the letter.
By my observations,I am not implying sides nor right or wrong.
I agree that many owners do back Marriott.
One of my main reasons for buying was Marriott.
The letter as written,given the situation,had no other way to be addressed.
My motive of posting about it is not to take sides but to expose the language or spirit of it as I would think a newbie would interpret it.
I have shown the letter to several associates and have gotten similar responses. That's why I posted the challenge.
Just an observation.
To say that I am committed to the cause is not totally true.
Committ is a strong word.
I for one am trying to illicit a response from Marriott,the BOD,or whomever,to share their points of view so that I can make an intelligent decision.
My posts are basically made to look at both sides without bias.
Anyone's interpretations of my posts have not always been right on.
I do not discount the groups intentions because I feel that they have some justifications as does Marriott and those that support them.
As you can see from previous posts that I enjoy tremendously going to the AOC and always am looking forward to my return(8 weeks and counting).

Whatever the outcome,I want it to be fair and without bias.
The best response to me so far was:
Do you want to be right or happy!


----------



## m61376

SueDonJ said:


> His response:  Let him fight his own battles.  I like what Marriott does and I like Aruba.  :hysterical:
> 
> And of course I had to laugh with him, because we've never been there.
> 
> But like I said, now he's mumbling under his breath about the media and steroids and privacy laws and maybe going to Aruba someday.



As the saying goes: try it, you may like it :whoopie: :whoopie: 
But, given our history of seeing things differently, you'd probably prefer the Ocean Club  . Seriously, both resorts are great and you should at some point trade in and see what all the special assessments on this thread have at least paid for.


----------



## Chemee

modoaruba said:


> I remember a few years ago the front desk or Marriott(I do not recall) compromised our credit cards.
> Can any body else recall the exact specifics?



Here's a link to a USA Today article on this - 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-12-28-marriott-missingdata_x.htm?csp=34

Also, speaking of Marriott maintaining privacy, when we were at the sales presentation when we bought our MAO week, I specifically remember being handed a binder that listed the names & addresses of the MAO owners.  It was a sales tactic "look at all the owners in your area".   I remember looking up towns in the 4 states we had lived in.  They even left us alone with the binder.  I could have torn out as many pages as I had wanted to & taken them with me.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> Modo, I really respect that you are seemingly one of the few "crusaders" that seems be able to at least see the other side of the argument. I like the fact that you do not just make drive by posts and are willing to have a reasonable discussion of facts.
> 
> That not every third post is, "well I am tired of talking about it". That you stay engaged.
> 
> But I have to call foul here. You asked us to perform a test. Sue did and reported the results in great detail. A report from some crusaders doing the same would probably have been "my wife thinks MVCI has ruined their reputation by sending out this letter. What do they have to hide?", omitting the fact that they only showed it to their dog.
> 
> I appreciate that you do not like the outcome. I want to make sure I give the test a fair shake when I perform it. What did Sue do or fail to do in her test?
> 
> I am scratching my head on this one.



She did not fail at all.The response was what I thought it would be.
I'm scratching my head at those who don't get it.


----------



## lovearuba

*what Marriott wants you to know*



modoaruba said:


> She did not fail at all.The response was what I thought it would be.
> I'm scratching my head at those who don't get it.


 
Marriott intentionally wrote that letter to mislead folks into believing their information would be misused.  There is no other intention and of course anyone who is not involved in the discussion who does not know why it was requested would act like Sue's better half.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> Modo, I really respect that you are seemingly one of the few "crusaders" that seems be able to at least see the other side of the argument. I like the fact that you do not just make drive by posts and are willing to have a reasonable discussion of facts.
> 
> That not every third post is, "well I am tired of talking about it". That you stay engaged.
> 
> But I have to call foul here. You asked us to perform a test. Sue did and reported the results in great detail. A report from some crusaders doing the same would probably have been "my wife thinks MVCI has ruined their reputation by sending out this letter. What do they have to hide?", omitting the fact that they only showed it to their dog.
> 
> I appreciate that you do not like the outcome. I want to make sure I give the test a fair shake when I perform it. What did Sue do or fail to do in her test?
> 
> I am scratching my head on this one.



But thats the part I just dont get. I am tired of talking about it. Esp when we're talking about the same things over and over and over and over. Nothing gets solved in so doing. I posted the letter because it was in fact something new. But going over the same things about Allan Cohen, and whether the BOD is right or wrong etc. imho serves no purpose. Im not going to address those simply for your or anyone else's amusement. You know the old adage of opinions are like -------- everyone has one. Well here same thing. I said before I would rather wait and see the end result then I guess we'll all know who was right and who was wrong.

With regard to the letter. I certainly didnt say Marriott ruined their reputation by sending out the letter . What I did say is that the letter did not under any circumstances make clear the situation. As I said to those not in the know it seemed that Marriott and/or the BOD(really one in the same  was attempting to prevent a mischief that they were aware of  ie that is why the info was being requested not because Allan had requested it through the lawyer. To me and the large number of people(sorry I dont have a dog) that I did show it to that is clearly misleading. Sue's husband made just that point. He had no idea what it was about till he was told. Then he said to let the guy fight his own battles. His choice once he knew what it was that he was agreeing to or not. Thats all I was saying. There should have been enough info in there for people to make that choice. I thought that was sort of obvious on a plain read. Guess im more amazed that there were those who thought otherwise...lol.

Oh and I hope you are including me in the crusader group given that the definitions of crusader include :A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse, and :a disputant who advocates reform, I do think the label is appropriate


----------



## lovearuba

*A bit surprised*



ecwinch said:


> If you have not personally experienced this, or do not have firm evidence that supports the accounts of the other posters, how do you know it to be true?
> 
> And not embellished to solicit your support?
> 
> Do you know that Allan sent the letter to MVCI and the AOC?
> 
> Is it possible that he wrote if for the consumption of those here on TUG, and the BoD or MVCI has never seen it? Or that he has received a reply.
> 
> And if you are interested in the answer to the questions he posed, then why not send the same letter? Or a letter asking for the BoD response to his letter? Everytime I asked to see the proof, I got "he does not have to give you anything, you do not own there".
> 
> I would personally require a higher standard in regard to authenicating the statements of others. Particularly on an issue that is so important.
> 
> The BoD members are owners also. Why would they seek out BoD office, and then fail to protect the interests of the same group they belong to? In essence taking actions that will hurt them. For they will not be BoD members forever.
> 
> I think some fell too easy for this notion that the BoD is only interested in protecting MVCI.


 
I'm surprised at you, I think you know that Allan is a reputable person and I think you cast doubt because you have lots of time on your hand and just like the back and forth.  If you don't have anything to say, then you challenge everyone elses integrity.  Allan has offered to speak to anyone who wishes to contact him, you've shied away from it because you don't want to hear both sides.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> But thats the part I just dont get. I am tired of talking about it. Esp when we're talking about the same things over and over and over and over. Nothing gets solved in so doing. I posted the letter because it was in fact something new. But going over the same things about Allan Cohen, and whether the BOD is right or wrong etc. imho serves no purpose. Im not going to address those simply for your or anyone else's amusement. You know the old adage of opinions are like -------- everyone has one. Well here same thing. I said before I would rather wait and see the end result then I guess we'll all know who was right and who was wrong.
> 
> With regard to the letter. I certainly didnt say Marriott ruined their reputation by sending out the letter . What I did say is that the letter did not under any circumstances make clear the situation. As I said to those not in the know it seemed that Marriott and/or the BOD(really one in the same  was attempting to prevent a mischief that they were aware of  ie that is why the info was being requested not because Allan had requested it through the lawyer. To me and the large number of people(sorry I dont have a dog) that I did show it to that is clearly misleading. Sue's husband made just that point. He had no idea what it was about till he was told. Then he said to let the guy fight his own battles. His choice once he knew what it was that he was agreeing to or not. Thats all I was saying. There should have been enough info in there for people to make that choice. I thought that was sort of obvious on a plain read. Guess im more amazed that there were those who thought otherwise...lol.
> 
> Oh and I hope you are including me in the crusader group given that the definitions of crusader include :A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse, and :a disputant who advocates reform, I do think the label is appropriate



I do. And I did not choose the term lightly.

Can we agree that these are the facts surrounding this issue?

FACTS:
1) The letter is in response to Allan's actions
2) The letter specifically referenced Allan's actions
3) The BOD has to consider this and all future requests, to set a policy
4) The BOD is asking the members how they want their personal information to be protected

Why do you suggest that the BoD had an obligation to disclose what Mark wanted the information for? 

His purpose has no bearing on the question that was being asked. They are setting a policy on this matter. 

Are you suggesting that the BoD send out a letter for each request they receive? I do not think that would be cost effective.

Do you know for a fact that Allan disclosed the purpose for requesting the mailing list?

If he did not, how is the BoD supposed to know his intentions?

Now if you want to put this matter to a rest, then address the questions answered. Otherwise, we just keep going around and around. I ask questions, you make statements avoiding the questions - rinse and repeat.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> I'm surprised at you, I think you know that Allan is a reputable person and I think you cast doubt because you have lots of time on your hand and just like the back and forth.  If you don't have anything to say, then you challenge everyone elses integrity.  Allan has offered to speak to anyone who wishes to contact him, you've shied away from it because you don't want to hear both sides.



I am not interested in hearing Allan's opinions on the matter. If Allan or anyone else has verifiable proof, I am very interested in that information.

I respect your right to your opinion. Respect my right to have my own.

Even a reputable person can make bad decisions. As I have repeated time and time again, I think Allan is misguided, not disreputable.

Nor do I ask these questions because I am bored. I am interested in the topic.

But I think the essence of your suggestion has some merit. I will e-mail him and ask for whatever factual evidence he can supply to support his position.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Marriott intentionally wrote that letter to mislead folks into believing their information would be misused.  There is no other intention and of course anyone who is not involved in the discussion who does not know why it was requested would act like Sue's better half.



To do otherwise would have been them offering their opinion on Allan's motives for requesting the list.

Then they would have been open to legal action for libel if you did not agree with their characterization of why the request is being made.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> She did not fail at all.The response was what I thought it would be.
> I'm scratching my head at those who don't get it.



As I am about those that think it is proof of the intent to deceive.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> As I am about those that think it is proof of the intent to deceive.



Not deceive but to steer.


----------



## modoaruba

*Motive*

let's put motive on the table.
My motive-I own 4 weeks.
               I just paid quite a bit in fees.
               There is a group out there that is crying foul play against Marriott.
               I bought in because of Marriott.
               I want Marriott to remain.
               I want Marriott to respond.
               I have quite a bit of investment that I want to protect.

I wander at times about Eric and Susan's motive.
Non owners who are very determined to buck the group and discredit them.Why?
I do not follow your rationale at times.
What gain do you expect?
Your responses sometimes make me feel like I am reading the letter from Marriott.
At times you seem like the Trojan horses on this blog.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> let's put motive on the table.
> My motive-I own 4 weeks.
> I just paid quite a bit in fees.
> There is a group out there that is crying foul play against Marriott.
> I bought in because of Marriott.
> I want Marriott to remain.
> I want Marriott to respond.
> I have quite a bit of investment that I want to protect.
> 
> I wander at times about Eric and Susan's motive.
> Non owners who are very determined to buck the group and discredit them.Why?
> I do not follow your rationale at times.
> What gain do you expect?
> Your responses sometimes make me feel like I am reading the letter from Marriott.
> At times you seem like the Trojan horses on this blog.



Do you remember that show Green Acres? The part where Eddie Albert starts making a speech and you hear patriotic music in the background. Ok - cue sound....

I am here on principle. I know an evil developer when I see one, and it is not MVCI.

I see the majority of what the crusaders do here as an attempt to "steer" opinion in their direction. Otherwise they would not have picked TUG as the platform for this crusade, nor made this the longest running thread on TUG.

I see a need for someone to balance their viewpoint, with a more moderate one.

Now we have been at this for a long time. I have asked a number of salient questions, without many answers. I get speeches in return. Well shut me with facts, not opinions.

I also am dismayed that some people can have an opinion so strong, that it allows them to ignore certain key facts that do not support what they are saying.

If they simply offered a fair and balance report, without injecting their bias. I would not be here at all.

ps. I am also involved in three other threads where I do not own. There I am trying to help the owners fight a developer that is abusing the system. I know the difference in regard to MVCI.


----------



## Dean

Chemee said:


> Also, speaking of Marriott maintaining privacy, when we were at the sales presentation when we bought our MAO week, I specifically remember being handed a binder that listed the names & addresses of the MAO owners.  It was a sales tactic "look at all the owners in your area".   I remember looking up towns in the 4 states we had lived in.  They even left us alone with the binder.  I could have torn out as many pages as I had wanted to & taken them with me.


They get permission to list those people.



modoaruba said:


> let's put motive on the table.
> My motive-I own 4 weeks.
> I just paid quite a bit in fees.
> There is a group out there that is crying foul play against Marriott.
> I bought in because of Marriott.
> I want Marriott to remain.
> I want Marriott to respond.
> I have quite a bit of investment that I want to protect.
> 
> I wander at times about Eric and Susan's motive.
> Non owners who are very determined to buck the group and discredit them.Why?
> I do not follow your rationale at times.
> What gain do you expect?
> Your responses sometimes make me feel like I am reading the letter from Marriott.
> At times you seem like the Trojan horses on this blog.


An thus I think we're down to the fundamental difference, those that are ready (for whatever reason) to assume the worst about Marriott and accept the accusations as the sole facts and those that are unwilling to accept the worst case scenario and the accusations at face value without more proof.  I have seen NO ONE that is simply saying Marriott all the way.  Carried a step further, those of use who have been willing to look at both sides in an objective way have been either accused of not mattering because they don't own there or as idiots because they don't take the accusations as fact.  In addition, many of us have pointed out that even it the accusation about the roof are totally true, Marriott has offered to pay roughly half of a depreciating asset, very fair in my book.  And some of us have pointed out the obvious, if you truly believe the worst case scenario why would you want to own at this resort, or any Marriott for that matter.   IMO, the core ethics of the BOD and MVCI have been questioned and insulted AND the average member there has likely been hurt by the actions at hand rather than helped.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> Do you remember that show Green Acres? The part where Eddie Albert starts making a speech and you hear patriotic music in the background. Ok - cue sound....
> 
> I am here on principle. I know an evil developer when I see one, and it is not MVCI.
> 
> I see the majority of what the crusaders do here as an attempt to "steer" opinion in their direction. Otherwise they would not have picked TUG as the platform for this crusade, nor made this the longest running thread on TUG.
> 
> I see a need for someone to balance their viewpoint, with a more moderate one.
> 
> Now we have been at this for a long time. I have asked a number of salient questions, without many answers. I get speeches in return. Well shut me with facts, not opinions.
> 
> I also am dismayed that some people can have an opinion so strong, that it allows them to ignore certain key facts that do not support what they are saying.
> 
> If they simply offered a fair and balance report, without injecting their bias. I would not be here at all.
> 
> ps. I am also involved in three other threads where I do not own. There I am trying to help the owners fight a developer that is abusing the system. I know the difference in regard to MVCI.



Once again we get to the problem. You and a couple others on here simply wish to argue. Whenevr someone presents a "fact" you call it opinion . Whenevr one of your group of detractors presents an opinion you call it "fact". You are prepared to accept that Marriott has done nothing wrong here, that the offers they made, that their actions to prevent the owners from knowing the contents of reports, that their scheme to get rid of Allan, etc etc. is all OK. Thats fine but its your opinion. Matter of fact I dont think you have presented a single "fact" in any of this while I have heard far more "facts" from the other side. And that is exactly why Im not about to enter into an opinion debate with you or anyone else. I dont give a ---- if you dont like the "fact" that I posted the letter from Marriott. As I said after speaking with a number of people about it, and getting at least 10 opinions, I didnt think it could be cause for debate. Silly me.  As I said Im going to be far more interested in the outcome from the case when it progresses than I am in debating with you . It is for that reason I am not going to jump to the bait of your supposed questions when you throw them out as bait. You are simply looking to debate your opinion with mine and I think its a waste of time. You are not going to persuade me anymore than I am going to persuade you....so why in heavens name would I waste my breath ? 

I doubt very much that Mark came to start this thread expecting to steer people as you called it however. I expect that he like most other owners who are aware of the circumstances was upset at what they saw Marriott doing and was attempting to make the ones who didnt know aware. I doubt he would have expected so much non owner interest...lol.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Once again we get to the problem. You and a couple others on here simply wish to argue. Whenevr someone presents a "fact" you call it opinion . Whenevr one of your group of detractors presents an opinion you call it "fact". You are prepared to accept that Marriott has done nothing wrong here, that the offers they made, that their actions to prevent the owners from knowing the contents of reports, that their scheme to get rid of Allan, etc etc. is all OK. Thats fine but its your opinion. Matter of fact I dont think you have presented a single "fact" in any of this while I have heard far more "facts" from the other side. And that is exactly why Im not about to enter into an opinion debate with you or anyone else. I dont give a ---- if you dont like the "fact" that I posted the letter from Marriott. As I said after speaking with a number of people about it, and getting at least 10 opinions, I didnt think it could be cause for debate. Silly me.  As I said Im going to be far more interested in the outcome from the case when it progresses than I am in debating with you . It is for that reason I am not going to jump to the bait of your supposed questions when you throw them out as bait. You are simply looking to debate your opinion with mine and I think its a waste of time. You are not going to persuade me anymore than I am going to persuade you....so why in heavens name would I waste my breath ?
> 
> I doubt very much that Mark came to start this thread expecting to steer people as you called it however. I expect that he like most other owners who are aware of the circumstances was upset at what they saw Marriott doing and was attempting to make the ones who didnt know aware. I doubt he would have expected so much non owner interest...lol.



Indulge me. Give me at least two facts that support your position. Not two opinions, two facts. Something like:

"Here is my e-mail from X, asking for financial reports. Here is my followup. Never received an answer of any kind."

Something I can either see or independently verify. Not something like this letter, where I have to draw a conclusion.

That might be the difference between you and I, I can be convinced if there is evidence. Ask Mark how much support I showed him when it was first reported that MVCI was rejecting the Special Meeting request.


----------



## lovearuba

*the thread is long because...*



ecwinch said:


> Do you remember that show Green Acres? The part where Eddie Albert starts making a speech and you hear patriotic music in the background. Ok - cue sound....
> 
> I am here on principle. I know an evil developer when I see one, and it is not MVCI.
> 
> I see the majority of what the crusaders do here as an attempt to "steer" opinion in their direction. Otherwise they would not have picked TUG as the platform for this crusade, nor made this the longest running thread on TUG.
> 
> I see a need for someone to balance their viewpoint, with a more moderate one.
> 
> Now we have been at this for a long time. I have asked a number of salient questions, without many answers. I get speeches in return. Well shut me with facts, not opinions.
> 
> I also am dismayed that some people can have an opinion so strong, that it allows them to ignore certain key facts that do not support what they are saying.
> 
> If they simply offered a fair and balance report, without injecting their bias. I would not be here at all.
> 
> ps. I am also involved in three other threads where I do not own. There I am trying to help the owners fight a developer that is abusing the system. I know the difference in regard to MVCI.


 
The thread is so long because you and others that are not owners continue to post to it. If you didnt spend so much time it would be pages and pages shorter.  The only information that the crusaders would post would be updates and responses to the non-owners who continue to ask questions and justifications.  You are one of the most active posters.  Thanks for keeping it open we truly appreciate your support.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> The thread is so long because you and others that are not owners continue to post to it. If you didnt spend so much time it would be pages and pages shorter.  The only information that the crusaders would post would be updates and responses to the non-owners who continue to ask questions and justifications.  You are one of the most active posters.  Thanks for keeping it open we truly appreciate your support.



Your welcome, I am here to help.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> Once again we get to the problem. You and a couple others on here simply wish to argue. Whenevr someone presents a "fact" you call it opinion . Whenevr one of your group of detractors presents an opinion you call it "fact". You are prepared to accept that Marriott has done nothing wrong here, that the offers they made, that their actions to prevent the owners from knowing the contents of reports, that their scheme to get rid of Allan, etc etc. is all OK. Thats fine but its your opinion. Matter of fact I dont think you have presented a single "fact" in any of this while I have heard far more "facts" from the other side. And that is exactly why Im not about to enter into an opinion debate with you or anyone else. I dont give a ---- if you dont like the "fact" that I posted the letter from Marriott. As I said after speaking with a number of people about it, and getting at least 10 opinions, I didnt think it could be cause for debate. Silly me.  As I said Im going to be far more interested in the outcome from the case when it progresses than I am in debating with you . It is for that reason I am not going to jump to the bait of your supposed questions when you throw them out as bait. You are simply looking to debate your opinion with mine and I think its a waste of time. You are not going to persuade me anymore than I am going to persuade you....so why in heavens name would I waste my breath ?
> 
> I doubt very much that Mark came to start this thread expecting to steer people as you called it however. I expect that he like most other owners who are aware of the circumstances was upset at what they saw Marriott doing and was attempting to make the ones who didnt know aware. I doubt he would have expected so much non owner interest...lol.



I don't know.  I suppose what some people would call, "arguing," others would call, "countering."  Just because the offered viewpoint differs from the original statements, doesn't make it automatically a contentious argument.  That's simply how a discussion works - one person says one thing, another person offers another view.  I just don't get the brouhaha over non-owners writing here to say that they can understand the justification for some of Marriott's/MVCI's actions and/or responses to this group.  In some cases that viewpoint is more correct than the owners group's.

For one example:  Mark posted his opinion that the BOD was trying to squash owners' rights incorrectly by referencing "an Aruban law" when it sent him a denial letter in response to his "petition" for a special meeting to recall members of the BOD.  The only "fact" that was in his statements about that issue was that his request was denied.  It turned out that "an Aruban law" was in no way connected to the "fact" that he submitted his "petition" in an incorrect form.  As much as some folks want to believe that it would be okay for Marriott/MVCI to circumvent proper legal procedure in order to placate this owners group, the "fact" is that they can't.  They can't, and the group can't.  Legal requirements, as much as some want to dismiss or trivialize them, must be followed if any decisions here are to be binding.

This is the sort of information that is being dissected here by the non-owners, not the "Marriott/MVCI/the BOD is always-always-always correct and don't you forget it!" mindset that you attribute to us.  Whether it's realized or not, this concerned owners group could be strengthened by considering seriously some of what the non-owners contribute here.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> She did not fail at all.The response was what I thought it would be.
> I'm scratching my head at those who don't get it.



I do get it, Modo.  You think that the wording of the letter was deliberately crafted to mislead the readers into thinking that the owner who made the request for their personal information would use it nefariously.  And you think that those of us who "saw" that nefariousness were led to see it, rather than thinking of it on our own.

Would it make any difference if I said that because of us being bombarded with threats of fraud/identity theft everywhere we turn, most people would "see" that nefariousness in even the simplest letter that the BOD could have crafted?  For example, I'd see it in this:

"We have received a request from an owner to release your personal information to him/her, including your name and address, so that s/he can contact you directly with information that s/he considers pertinent to all owners."

If I received that, my response (and I know Don's response!) would still be, "No way," with an attempt to get further information about the issue from the resort GM and/or MVCI's officers.

And again, I would in no way expect the BOD to include in the letter any information whatsoever that would make it easier for the person requesting the owners' list to state his position.  None.  That owner is an adversary of the BOD.  Would you expect that owner to make the BOD's position more clear to other owners?


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> let's put motive on the table.
> My motive-I own 4 weeks.
> I just paid quite a bit in fees.
> There is a group out there that is crying foul play against Marriott.
> I bought in because of Marriott.
> I want Marriott to remain.
> I want Marriott to respond.
> I have quite a bit of investment that I want to protect.
> 
> I wander at times about Eric and Susan's motive.
> Non owners who are very determined to buck the group and discredit them.Why?
> I do not follow your rationale at times.
> What gain do you expect?
> Your responses sometimes make me feel like I am reading the letter from Marriott.
> At times you seem like the Trojan horses on this blog.



Hmmmm.  Motive?  I don't think I have a motive.  One day I stumbled into this thread and it interested me in the same way that most every thread on this Marriott board interests me.  I started reading and thinking about responses so often that I just joined in the discussion.  Easy as that, with no ulterior motive at all.

One thought that's rattling around - how much of a good purpose could this thread serve if all of the posts were offered by members of the "concerned owners" group, with absolutely no contest to any of the information contained in those posts?  Especially when you consider that some of the information from those members has been flat-out incorrect, nevermind written with a bias against Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD?

This group has some legitimacy, no doubt, but it has not performed actions as well as it could have in some instances.  (That's not meant as an insult; please don't take it as one.)  Why is it harmful for non-owners to point that out, especially as they are at the same time pointing out other possible solutions to the issues here?


----------



## lovearuba

*Constructive recommendations*



SueDonJ said:


> Hmmmm. Motive? I don't think I have a motive. One day I stumbled into this thread and it interested me in the same way that most every thread on this Marriott board interests me. I started reading and thinking about responses so often that I just joined in the discussion. Easy as that, with no ulterior motive at all.
> 
> One thought that's rattling around - how much of a good purpose could this thread serve if all of the posts were offered by members of the "concerned owners" group, with absolutely no contest to any of the information contained in those posts? Especially when you consider that some of the information from those members has been flat-out incorrect, nevermind written with a bias against Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD?
> 
> This group has some legitimacy, no doubt, but it has not performed actions as well as it could have in some instances. (That's not meant as an insult; please don't take it as one.) Why is it harmful for non-owners to point that out, especially as they are at the same time pointing out other possible solutions to the issues here?


 
Sue, I spoke with Allan the other day and he welcomes Eric and you to contact him directly if you think you have better options than the ones already being pursued.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> Sue, I spoke with Allan the other day and he welcomes Eric and you to contact him directly if you think you have better options than the ones already being pursued.



I appreciate that offer, I do, but how can I make any suggestion of options that are better than what's being pursued, when I don't know what's being pursued?  I'm not being facetious here; just take a look at the posting history of all of the players here.

What I've seen throughout this thread is that Mark posts his version of something that's been done already in a posting style which is (deliberately?) inflammatory with just enough information to rile up the owners, without actually giving concrete details about what has been done already, and then the rest of us discuss the "what ifs" as they could be related to what he's posted, which leads to a discovery of something closer to the truth than what he'd posted previously.  That sounds very convoluted and it is, I agree, but it's exactly what happened with that failed petition submission as well as other actions Mark has taken.

Now if Mark was to instead post his idea of steps that he believes can be taken to protect his and the other owners' interests, then the rest of us can dissect and suggest to our hearts' content in order to flesh out the best-possible-scenario actions.  Or if he was to simply ask what the rest of us, as MVCI owners, would do if we were in your situation (and actually be open to the responses rather than think they are offered simply to be contentious,) then it's possible that we non-owners would feel that our input is welcomed.  That attitude, in my opinion, hasn't come across in any of his posts.


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> I appreciate that offer, I do, but how can I make any suggestion of options that are better than what's being pursued, when I don't know what's being pursued?  I'm not being facetious here; just take a look at the posting history of all of the players here.
> 
> What I've seen throughout this thread is that Mark posts his version of something that's been done already in a posting style which is (deliberately?) inflammatory with just enough information to rile up the owners, without actually giving concrete details about what has been done already, and then the rest of us discuss the "what ifs" as they could be related to what he's posted, which leads to a discovery of something closer to the truth than what he'd posted previously.  That sounds very convoluted and it is, I agree, but it's exactly what happened with that failed petition submission as well as other actions Mark has taken.
> 
> Now if Mark was to instead post his idea of steps that he believes can be taken to protect his and the other owners' interests, then the rest of us can dissect and suggest to our hearts' content in order to flesh out the best-possible-scenario actions.  Or if he was to simply ask what the rest of us, as MVCI owners, would do if we were in your situation (and actually be open to the responses rather than think they are offered simply to be contentious,) then it's possible that we non-owners would feel that our input is welcomed.  That attitude, in my opinion, hasn't come across in any of his posts.



Word.......


----------



## SueDonJ

SueDonJ said:


> This group has some legitimacy, no doubt, but it has not performed actions as well as it could have in some instances.  (That's not meant as an insult; please don't take it as one.)  Why is it harmful for non-owners to point that out, especially as they are at the same time pointing out other possible solutions to the issues here?





lovearuba said:


> Sue, I spoke with Allan the other day and he welcomes Eric and you to contact him directly if you think you have better options than the ones already being pursued.



That last post from me was meant to be vague and applied to this entire thread.  This one is specific to the failed petition submission.

Several non-owners have suggested that the request for a special meeting should be resubmitted by Mark in its proper form, meaning that your group should make an effort to get the signatures of the owners whose names were on Mark's list, onto a petition which states, "I agree with the request for a special meeting in order to recall members of the BOD, and want my name to be counted among the 10% requirement necessary to call such a meeting" (or whatever language is approved by a qualified attorney.)  If that means that your attorney suggests the wording and an email goes out to every name on that list directing each of you to submit by certified mail a signed statement of same to the one correct address on your own dime, then that's what you have to do.  Or, if your attorney suggests that Mark collects all of the statements from each of you and submits them all together in one package, then that's what it will take.  The point being, there are enough concerned owners to satisfy the bylaw requirement; if you take steps to satisfy the legal requirements, too, then you'll be on your way to an action which is your right by virtue of the bylaws.

Of course, that would mean that the members of your group would have to acknowledge 1) that Mark's submission was not in its proper form, and 2) that MVCI/the BOD did not deny your bylaw rights, but rather your incorrect submission.  Neither of those admissions has been made by Mark; in fact, he insists still (as far as we know, because he hasn't posted differently) that MVCI/the BOD wrongly infringed on owner rights.

The only reason I can think of that a correct submission to the BOD has been replaced by the request for all owners' names and addresses, is because Mark/Allan want to increase the numbers of owners who join in to the cause.  Perhaps because the attempt will be made to not only request the special meeting but also to increase the number of concerned owners who will actually vote against MVCI/the BOD?  That makes some sense especially following the last vote results.  But again, without Mark offering the details of why he is taking certain actions, we're left to guess.


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> The only reason I can think of that a correct submission to the BOD has been replaced by the request for all owners' names and addresses, is because Mark/Allan want to increase the numbers of owners who join in to the cause.  Perhaps because the attempt will be made to not only request the special meeting but also to increase the number of concerned owners who will actually vote against MVCI/the BOD?  That makes some sense especially following the last vote results.  But again, without Mark offering the details of why he is taking certain actions, we're left to guess.



Word.......


----------



## SueDonJ

SueDonJ said:


> The only reason I can think of that a correct submission to the BOD has been replaced by the request for all owners' names and addresses, is because Mark/Allan want to increase the numbers of owners who join in to the cause.  Perhaps because the attempt will be made to not only request the special meeting but also to increase the number of concerned owners who will actually vote against MVCI/the BOD?  That makes some sense especially following the last vote results.  But again, without Mark offering the details of why he is taking certain actions, we're left to guess.





ecwinch said:


> Word.......



Well, if that is the reason, I hope that somebody qualified has reviewed the MAOC documents to determine exactly what the number of votes needed to overcome MVCI's "B" votes would be.  Because if the MAOC setup is the same as that at Shadow Ridge (again, the only resort's governing documents that we've been able to access electronically,) then the number of "B" votes held by MAOC isn't a set number, but rather one that's subject to a certain formula as stipulated in the documents taking into account several factors.


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> Well, if that is the reason, I hope that somebody qualified has reviewed the MAOC documents to determine exactly what the number of votes needed to overcome MVCI's "B" votes would be.  Because if the MAOC setup is the same as that at Shadow Ridge (again, the only resort's governing documents that we've been able to access electronically,) then the number of "B" votes held by MAOC isn't a set number, but rather one that's subject to a certain formula as stipulated in the documents taking into account several factors.



Sue, I think you might be posting to yourself. 

Early in the crusade I asked for someone to provide me with a copy of the by-laws so that I might be able to assist in that regard. Apparently the by-laws are a small book with a lot of pages.

And I would not read a lot into Love's post that Allan is open to suggestions on alternative solutions to this problem. The crusaders have all the answers and have no need of input from non-owners.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> Sue, I think you might be posting to yourself.



Eh, that's no different than what they tell me here when they hear me talking and don't see anyone around.  What you and they don't understand is, my dawg is always by my side and he understands every word I say/write.


----------



## lovearuba

*Staying alive*



SueDonJ said:


> Eh, that's no different than what they tell me here when they hear me talking and don't see anyone around. What you and they don't understand is, my dawg is always by my side and he understands every word I say/write.


 
Sue, we know you like to  post and you opened this thread back up.  It was not really showing on the first page until you resurfaced it by  creating numerous other posts.  I gave you and Eric the option to speak with Allan and you continue to not what to do that, I guess you dont want to really hear a balanced view or make any constructive criticism.  If you did you would take him up on his offer.


----------



## Zac495

Luckybee said:


> Once again we get to the problem. You and a couple others on here simply wish to argue. Whenevr someone presents a "fact" you call it opinion . Whenevr one of your group of detractors presents an opinion you call it "fact". You are prepared to accept that Marriott has done nothing wrong here, that the offers they made, that their actions to prevent the owners from knowing the contents of reports, that their scheme to get rid of Allan, etc etc. is all OK. Thats fine but its your opinion. Matter of fact I dont think you have presented a single "fact" in any of this while I have heard far more "facts" from the other side. And that is exactly why Im not about to enter into an opinion debate with you or anyone else. I dont give a ---- if you dont like the "fact" that I posted the letter from Marriott. As I said after speaking with a number of people about it, and getting at least 10 opinions, I didnt think it could be cause for debate. Silly me.  As I said Im going to be far more interested in the outcome from the case when it progresses than I am in debating with you . It is for that reason I am not going to jump to the bait of your supposed questions when you throw them out as bait. You are simply looking to debate your opinion with mine and I think its a waste of time. You are not going to persuade me anymore than I am going to persuade you....so why in heavens name would I waste my breath ?
> 
> I doubt very much that Mark came to start this thread expecting to steer people as you called it however. I expect that he like most other owners who are aware of the circumstances was upset at what they saw Marriott doing and was attempting to make the ones who didnt know aware. I doubt he would have expected so much non owner interest...lol.



I read this thread every day. Mark helped me know the facts - the simple facts - fees up to 1700 and big SA. I sold. Thanks, Mark.

All the other stuff? It surprises me that it's caused such an angry stir. I guess I'm just a simple person (though most who know me would disagree) - to me the fact that Marriott raised the fees from about 11 to about 17 in one year plus added the SA for 2 years was a terrible thing to do in this economy.

I don't know about Allen and roof and other things - I don't know. 

More simple stuff - I love Marriott's quality over other timeshares. I'll rent Aruba every 4 years or so for sure. Bet I get a summer month for about 2K but I don't have to worry about fees going up more.


----------



## Dean

Zac495 said:


> I read this thread every day. Mark helped me know the facts - the simple facts - fees up to 1700 and big SA. I sold. Thanks, Mark.


You have plenty of ways to know about the increase and SA without this thread.  I'm not simple, but I do swing between philosophical and practical on such matters depending on the specifics at hand.  Fees went up because costs went up.  The SA was in part related to unexpected costs.  They have no choice but to either charge owners the actual costs OR to let the resort suffer and postpone certain maint issues.  Or they could compromise like Beachplace tried to do and Marriott wouldn't let them, Marriott was in the right in that situation IMO.  I respect that you made a judgement and acted on it and it likely was the best choice.  I made the decision up front NOT to buy there largely for the reasons you sold.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> Sue, we know you like to  post and you opened this thread back up.  It was not really showing on the first page until you resurfaced it by  creating numerous other posts.  I gave you and Eric the option to speak with Allan and you continue to not what to do that, I guess you dont want to really hear a balanced view or make any constructive criticism.  If you did you would take him up on his offer.



I opened it back up because after being away for the weekend, there were new posts that I hadn't seen yet.  And yes, I like to post, in this thread and a few others that interest me.

What is the difference between Mark or Allan reading constructive criticism here (from anyone who's participating) and them reading it in a private email or hearing it on the telephone?  If they are receptive to the criticism, then the medium is not going to make a difference.  And I'm not going to say anything different elsewhere than what I write here, that's for sure.

I'm not sure I get the, "you don't want to really hear a balanced view" thing, though.  I do, but not in a private conversation.  That lends a certain "mystery" to the issue that I don't think is constructive.  If Mark and Allan are correct, there should be no worries about what they post publicly.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> I do get it, Modo.  You think that the wording of the letter was deliberately crafted to mislead the readers into thinking that the owner who made the request for their personal information would use it nefariously.  And you think that those of us who "saw" that nefariousness were led to see it, rather than thinking of it on our own.
> 
> Would it make any difference if I said that because of us being bombarded with threats of fraud/identity theft everywhere we turn, most people would "see" that nefariousness in even the simplest letter that the BOD could have crafted?  For example, I'd see it in this:
> 
> "We have received a request from an owner to release your personal information to him/her, including your name and address, so that s/he can contact you directly with information that s/he considers pertinent to all owners."
> 
> If I received that, my response (and I know Don's response!) would still be, "No way," with an attempt to get further information about the issue from the resort GM and/or MVCI's officers.
> 
> And again, I would in no way expect the BOD to include in the letter any information whatsoever that would make it easier for the person requesting the owners' list to state his position.  None.  That owner is an adversary of the BOD.  Would you expect that owner to make the BOD's position more clear to other owners?



Yes I do believe the letter was deliberately crafted.You said yourself that you would expect the BOD to not include info to make it easier for the reader.
You just compromised your own thoughts.
If the list gets out(those of you who suffer from paranoia),the most harm it can do is get you more junk mail(which I sincerely doubt).
You are hiding behind the legality of privacy for support of an organization that by far failed to protect our privacy with very damaging private info along with the usage of said info in sending us directly or indirectly excessive amounts of junk.
Cut me a break.
Again, what IS your motive here?
Either you like confrontations due to your nature or you are the Trojan horse as I stated before working with Marriott.


----------



## Luckybee

SueDonJ said:


> I opened it back up because after being away for the weekend, there were new posts that I hadn't seen yet.  And yes, I like to post, in this thread and a few others that interest me.
> 
> What is the difference between Mark or Allan reading constructive criticism here (from anyone who's participating) and them reading it in a private email or hearing it on the telephone?  If they are receptive to the criticism, then the medium is not going to make a difference.  And I'm not going to say anything different elsewhere than what I write here, that's for sure.
> 
> I'm not sure I get the, "you don't want to really hear a balanced view" thing, though.  I do, but not in a private conversation.  That lends a certain "mystery" to the issue that I don't think is constructive.  If Mark and Allan are correct, there should be no worries about what they post publicly.



Yep LoveAruba is certainly correct.  Repeatedly Mark and others involved have been advised(both on the board and off the board) NOT to post various things on this board regarding strategy, evidence, etc. esp if there is the possibility that this may end up in court. I can also think of a myriad of others reasons why some things are better left off the board ! This isnt the first time that speaking to Allan has been suggested, yet strangely, those who seem the most interested in stirring the pot have no interest in doing anything other than stirring the pot ie :contacting him.


----------



## Luckybee

modoaruba said:


> Yes I do believe the letter was deliberately crafted.You said yourself that you would expect the BOD to not include info to make it easier for the reader.
> You just compromised your own thoughts.
> If the list gets out(those of you who suffer from paranoia),the most harm it can do is get you more junk mail(which I sincerely doubt).
> You are hiding behind the legality of privacy for support of an organization that by far failed to protect our privacy with very damaging private info along with the usage of said info in sending us directly or indirectly excessive amounts of junk.
> Cut me a break.
> Again, what IS your motive here?
> Either you like confrontations due to your nature or you are the Trojan horse as I stated before working with Marriott.



Amen...But sadly now, you're going to be accused of being paranoid, or the detractors are going to start making sarcastic jokes about your thought process  which is exactly what has been done each and every time that they get called on this stuff !


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> Yep LoveAruba is certainly correct.  Repeatedly Mark and others involved have been advised(both on the board and off the board) NOT to post various things on this board regarding strategy, evidence, etc. esp if there is the possibility that this may end up in court. I can also think of a myriad of others reasons why some things are better left off the board ! This isnt the first time that speaking to Allan has been suggested, yet strangely, those who seem the most interested in stirring the pot have no interest in doing anything other than stirring the pot ie :contacting him.



Honestly, I really and truly see no need to discuss anything with Allan or Mark off of this board.  What is it you expect will happen if I do?  What, I'm going to change my tune all of a sudden and think that Marriott/MVCI/the BOD should start circumventing the stipulations in the contracts or the legal requirements that impact all of these issues, that they've followed to this point, simply to placate a minority ownership group at one of their many resorts?  Nope, that's not going to happen - they and the owners have legal obligations that cannot be dismissed or ignored.  Will I hear something from Mark/Allan which will make me think that Marriott/MVCI should pay 100% of the roof repair costs?  I doubt it - no insurance or warranty program provides for 100% relief when there has been ongoing usage of the product.  Will I think that owners should have access to the personal address/telephone numbers of BOD members?  Nope, I said a long time ago that it makes sense to me in this day and age with privacy laws that a generic email address is sufficient for BOD contact.  Will I change my thinking that the historical m/f figures have been too low to support your resort and a substantial hike would eventually be necessary to correct that insufficiency?  Nope - anybody could review the history of all of the resorts in the MVCI portfolio and come to that conclusion.

Honestly, I think that the only thing on which I and Mark/Allan/all of the MAOC owners would agree is that, the timing of your increased m/f and special assessment is about as unfortunate as could be considering the depressed economy.  But I've said that here; there's no reason for me to say it directly by way of any other medium.  And the point to all this is, if Mark and/or Allan were truly open to any constructive criticism, they'd accept it in any medium.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> Yes I do believe the letter was deliberately crafted.You said yourself that you would expect the BOD to not include info to make it easier for the reader.
> You just compromised your own thoughts.
> If the list gets out(those of you who suffer from paranoia),the most harm it can do is get you more junk mail(which I sincerely doubt).
> You are hiding behind the legality of privacy for support of an organization that by far failed to protect our privacy with very damaging private info along with the usage of said info in sending us directly or indirectly excessive amounts of junk.
> Cut me a break.
> Again, what IS your motive here?
> Either you like confrontations due to your nature or you are the Trojan horse as I stated before working with Marriott.



I think you might misunderstand.  I agree that the letter is deliberately crafted.  We just disagree with the reasons for that deliberation and in the crafting.

As for the stuff about motive or Trojan Horse or working with Marriott, well, that's been asked and answered too many times already.


----------



## modoaruba

Luckybee said:


> Amen...But sadly now, you're going to be accused of being paranoid, or the detractors are going to start making sarcastic jokes about your thought process  which is exactly what has been done each and every time that they get called on this stuff !



No problem. I'm a big boy now and am pretty much secure with myself.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Sue, we know you like to  post and you opened this thread back up.  It was not really showing on the first page until you resurfaced it by  creating numerous other posts.  I gave you and Eric the option to speak with Allan and you continue to not what to do that, I guess you dont want to really hear a balanced view or make any constructive criticism.  If you did you would take him up on his offer.



Given the sarcastic tone of your last post regarding Allan, I decided that contacting him was pointless. If you think that he is sincerely interested in other opinions please ask him to contact me. Mark has my e-mail address.


----------



## ecwinch

Zac495 said:


> I read this thread every day. Mark helped me know the facts - the simple facts - fees up to 1700 and big SA. I sold. Thanks, Mark.
> 
> All the other stuff? It surprises me that it's caused such an angry stir. I guess I'm just a simple person (though most who know me would disagree) - to me the fact that Marriott raised the fees from about 11 to about 17 in one year plus added the SA for 2 years was a terrible thing to do in this economy.
> 
> I don't know about Allen and roof and other things - I don't know.
> 
> More simple stuff - I love Marriott's quality over other timeshares. I'll rent Aruba every 4 years or so for sure. Bet I get a summer month for about 2K but I don't have to worry about fees going up more.



Ellen,

How will you look back on that decision, if in two years the economy is back up, rental prices start to increase drastically, and you no longer can reserve that week that you enjoyed for so many years?

I am not questioning your decision per se, just illustrating the "collateral damage" of Mark's biased attacks on Marriott. 

I write this in the hope, that the economy does improve, but MVCI rental prices stay in a range you are comfortable with. I wish no ill will on anyone that has contributed to this thread.

Thanks


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> I think you might misunderstand.  I agree that the letter is deliberately crafted.  We just disagree with the reasons for that deliberation and in the crafting.
> 
> As for the stuff about motive or Trojan Horse or working with Marriott, well, that's been asked and answered too many times already.



The only thing you have to back yourself up might be the bylaws(rule of law).
Is it not the right of owners who might see that there have been injustices committed to legally challenge those issues and bylaws that seem to protect those who have committed the injustices?
Granted,sometimes rules and laws must change but must be followed until such a time they are deemed "unconstitutional".
The statements I make are not to take sides but to allow an openness for the possibility that the group might be correct.
Since you refuse to listen to "facts" gathered by the group, especially since given an invite,don't condemn.
I have listened to those "facts" and they are very concerning.
I have listened to your side and sorts and all I hear is bylaw rhetoric.
Just as you say show me the facts,you have no facts of your own to negate the group's concerns since you do not wish to hear them.
So what's the problem?
They can't post them here for legalities they say,so pick up a phone or go to private messages.
You'll sound a whole lot more informed if you do so.Then we can get into the real nitty gritty.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> You are hiding behind the legality of privacy for support of an organization that by far failed to protect our privacy with very damaging private info along with the usage of said info in sending us directly or indirectly excessive amounts of junk.



In light of your comments to Sue, I want make on my personal stance on the members list issue very clear. 

I think that resort developers/managers/HOA's that block a members legal right to the members list are wrong. I can only think that this is something that the ARDA has been promoting as an issue, because all the developers seem to be using the same defense. The issue is currently in Sacramento County court, and the owner won the case. It was appealed and will likely be appealed until exhausted. I believe the court will deny those appeals at some point, or it goes to the Supreme Court. 

I do support a members right to opt out of the members list. I think that is an appropriate safeguard for those who wish to have their privacy protected. 

My defense was strictly of the letter, and the opinion of some that it represented an attempt to deceive/mislead owners. If I made comments to the contrary, it was only in the context of repeating the defenses that they appear to be using.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Yep LoveAruba is certainly correct.  Repeatedly Mark and others involved have been advised(both on the board and off the board) NOT to post various things on this board regarding strategy, evidence, etc. esp if there is the possibility that this may end up in court. I can also think of a myriad of others reasons why some things are better left off the board ! This isnt the first time that speaking to Allan has been suggested, yet strangely, those who seem the most interested in stirring the pot have no interest in doing anything other than stirring the pot ie :contacting him.



This logic is as well formed as your stated intention to not post here. That relationship is like a moth to a flame.

There is no "surprise attack" in a courtroom. The court process is specifically designed to restrict your ability to do that. You have to disclose witness lists, evidence, etc. I think you watch too much TV if you have a different opinion.

Allan does not post here, because he does not want to have to defend his opinion (IMO). He would rather insulate himself in the opinions of his supporters, and use his proxy (Mark) for such activity.

His only legal concern would be one of defamation and libel.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> The only thing you have to back yourself up might be the bylaws(rule of law).
> Is it not the right of owners who might see that there have been injustices committed to legally challenge those issues and bylaws that seem to protect those who have committed the injustices?
> Granted,sometimes rules and laws must change but must be followed until such a time they are deemed "unconstitutional".
> The statements I make are not to take sides but to allow an openness for the possibility that the group might be correct.
> Since you refuse to listen to "facts" gathered by the group, especially since given an invite,don't condemn.



It's true that I haven't found much in the way of the actions or thoughts (as related here) of those who spearheaded this effort, that would lead me to side with them in this effort.  But I haven't condemned anything that hasn't been related here.  If legitimate grievances against Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD were to be related here by Mark or Allan (and to date none have been, imo,) then I would be open to the possibilities that this "concerned owners" group is more correct and/or Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD is more incorrect than I've believed up to this point.  It's convenient for you, I think, to translate my non-support of what has been related here to non-support of anything about which I have no knowledge.



modoaruba said:


> I have listened to those "facts" and they are very concerning.
> I have listened to your side and sorts and all I hear is bylaw rhetoric.
> Just as you say show me the facts,you have no facts of your own to negate the group's concerns since you do not wish to hear them.
> So what's the problem?
> They can't post them here for legalities they say,so pick up a phone or go to private messages.
> You'll sound a whole lot more informed if you do so.Then we can get into the real nitty gritty.



As I said, I see no reason to take this discussion off of this board, especially in light of the facts that I believe both Mark and Allan communicate with styles deliberately intended to rile the masses and that they have been about as unreceptive to non-owner input here as it is possible to be.  But if any MAOC owner, including them and you and anyone else who chooses, thinks that it will make a difference to discuss this in any other medium, well, it's easy enough to do.  Just click on the screenname over there and select, "Send a private message to ..."  Several folks - owners and non-owners alike - have already done so throughout this thread.

But again, I don't believe that it's productive to engage that way, and I honestly don't believe that doing so will change my opinions.  As has been said by many folks here, if Mark and/or Allan had a smoking gun then this could have all been taken care of quite a few months and quite a few thousand posts ago by producing the evidence to force Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD to comply with whatever contract terms they've breached.

Because that's what it all comes down to for me, Modo.  Either your ownership rights as stipulated in your contracts have been infringed upon, resulting in a breach of contract that would put Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD at legal risk, or your rights haven't been infringed.  Nothing else matters insofar as "making them pay" for the MAOC owners feeling like their ownership is no longer worth the price.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> It's true that I haven't found much in the way of the actions or thoughts (as related here) of those who spearheaded this effort, that would lead me to side with them in this effort.  But I haven't condemned anything that hasn't been related here.  If legitimate grievances against Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD were to be related here by Mark or Allan (and to date none have been, imo,) then I would be open to the possibilities that this "concerned owners" group is more correct and/or Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD is more incorrect than I've believed up to this point.  It's convenient for you, I think, to translate my non-support of what has been related here to non-support of anything about which I have no knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, I see no reason to take this discussion off of this board, especially in light of the facts that I believe both Mark and Allan communicate with styles deliberately intended to rile the masses and that they have been about as unreceptive to non-owner input here as it is possible to be.  But if any MAOC owner, including them and you and anyone else who chooses, thinks that it will make a difference to discuss this in any other medium, well, it's easy enough to do.  Just click on the screenname over there and select, "Send a private message to ..."  Several folks - owners and non-owners alike - have already done so throughout this thread.
> 
> But again, I don't believe that it's productive to engage that way, and I honestly don't believe that doing so will change my opinions.  As has been said by many folks here, if Mark and/or Allan had a smoking gun then this could have all been taken care of quite a few months and quite a few thousand posts ago by producing the evidence to force Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD to comply with whatever contract terms they've breached.
> 
> Because that's what it all comes down to for me, Modo.  Either your ownership rights as stipulated in your contracts have been infringed upon, resulting in a breach of contract that would put Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD at legal risk, or your rights haven't been infringed.  Nothing else matters insofar as "making them pay" for the MAOC owners feeling like their ownership is no longer worth the price.



There you go again with rhetoric.
Understand one thing;this whole thing is not about convincing YOU.
In my opinion there is sufficient data this group has to move forward with their attempt.
Since Allan was past pres. of the BOD,I'm sure he knows the laws better than anyone and is abiding by them.
The system is being tested and there is nothing wrong with that.
In the end it's not YOU that will make the final decision.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> This logic is as well formed as your stated intention to not post here. That relationship is like a moth to a flame.
> 
> There is no "surprise attack" in a courtroom. The court process is specifically designed to restrict your ability to do that. You have to disclose witness lists, evidence, etc. I think you watch too much TV if you have a different opinion.
> 
> Allan does not post here, because he does not want to have to defend his opinion (IMO). He would rather insulate himself in the opinions of his supporters, and use his proxy (Mark) for such activity.
> 
> His only legal concern would be one of defamation and libel.




I am not about to get into a debate with you about whether it is sound advice to post on a BB info that might well be the subject of litigation. If you think that any lawyer in their right mind would tell Mark, Allan or anyone else to do so, then I truly am wasting my breath and my time. Suffice to say I'd bet I know a tad more about the law than you do...lol.


----------



## Luckybee

modoaruba said:


> There you go again with rhetoric.
> Understand one thing;this whole thing is not about convincing YOU.
> In my opinion there is sufficient data this group has to move forward with their attempt.
> Since Allan was past pres. of the BOD,I'm sure he knows the laws better than anyone and is abiding by them.
> The system is being tested and there is nothing wrong with that.
> In the end it's not YOU that will make the final decision.



Again you are dead right. It isnt at all about convincing Sue or any other non owner. What is interesting, is the number of owners who are aware of the situation and who are also very very concerned !


----------



## lovearuba

*Mark and you*



ecwinch said:


> Given the sarcastic tone of your last post regarding Allan, I decided that contacting him was pointless. If you think that he is sincerely interested in other opinions please ask him to contact me. Mark has my e-mail address.


 
It interesting Eric that you would think I have a sarcastic tone  because so many people feel that you and the other Eric work for Marriott because of the comments you make.  You also have real knack for posting for the sake of posting.  

I suggested you talk to Allan for a balanced view.  You dont want to and thats fine you can continue to support the intent of keeping this post active.  The more people that are owners of the Ocean club that see this, the more owners that will sign up for the cause.  We continue to grow but do hope you recognize our right to post regardless of whether you agree.  I just want to remind you that you are not the moderator and we do not answer to you.    My words are genuine, I really care about this cause and I really believe that we will help change things.


----------



## Zac495

ecwinch said:


> Ellen,
> 
> How will you look back on that decision, if in two years the economy is back up, rental prices start to increase drastically, and you no longer can reserve that week that you enjoyed for so many years?
> 
> I am not questioning your decision per se, just illustrating the "collateral damage" of Mark's biased attacks on Marriott.
> 
> I write this in the hope, that the economy does improve, but MVCI rental prices stay in a range you are comfortable with. I wish no ill will on anyone that has contributed to this thread.
> 
> Thanks



Eric,
I hope that things are better for others. The world isn't about me. If suddenly those who didn't sell luck out and can rent their units for 3500 and still have 1700 fees- good for them! I hope the stock market goes back up, too - that I did not sell. 

For me, Eric, not going to Aruba every year, it makes no sense to keep such an expensive (fee) timeshare regardless of the rental increase possibility. If Aruba was where I went every year, I wouldn't have sold regardless of the fees and everything else going on. I bought it resale - used it for years - and sold it for a minor loss - so I am relieved. 

No matter what happens I will always be glad I got rid of Aruba. It's the wrong ownership for ME right now based on *FACTS *which are high fees and two SA's. Roof/Allen/etc - I refuse to get into it. I think Mark has owners' best interests at heart. Is he right? Is this being handled correctly? Who knows? I do care - even though I am no longer an owner.

I will continue to watch this thread because I care about the owners. I just think all of us who love timesharing and the Marriott brand should be more supportive of each other - that's all. It just doesn't feel like a supportive  thread. I do not say that you or anyone else is wishing ill will - it just doesn't seem supportive.

Do I make sense?


----------



## ecwinch

Zac495 said:


> Eric,
> I hope that things are better for others. The world isn't about me. If suddenly those who didn't sell luck out and can rent their units for 3500 and still have 1700 fees- good for them! I hope the stock market goes back up, too - that I did not sell.
> 
> For me, Eric, not going to Aruba every year, it makes no sense to keep such an expensive (fee) timeshare regardless of the rental increase possibility. If Aruba was where I went every year, I wouldn't have sold regardless of the fees and everything else going on. I bought it resale - used it for years - and sold it for a minor loss - so I am relieved.
> 
> No matter what happens I will always be glad I got rid of Aruba. It's the wrong ownership for ME right now based on *FACTS *which are high fees and two SA's. Roof/Allen/etc - I refuse to get into it. I think Mark has owners' best interests at heart. Is he right? Is this being handled correctly? Who knows? I do care - even though I am no longer an owner.
> 
> I will continue to watch this thread because I care about the owners. I just think all of us who love timesharing and the Marriott brand should be more supportive of each other - that's all. It just doesn't feel like a supportive  thread. I do not say that you or anyone else is wishing ill will - it just doesn't seem supportive.
> 
> Do I make sense?



Ellen, you do make sense. My reply was based on the limited information you provided on your conversation with Mark. Given your explanation, I understand your POV better.

On your last point, we might disagree. Though they do not feel it, I think we are trying to be supportive of the other owners. It is like when you see someone about to make a major mistake - and you try to encourage them to evaluate the alternatives and potential adverse consequences of their actions. And if it was one person, at some point you go - well it's their life. But here we have a group focused on encourage others to make a similar mistake. So it is natural that it be confrontational. 

As I said many times before. If this forum was not used as a pulpit for expressing a biased viewpoint, then I would probably be far less active.

You enjoy your vacations, wherever they might be and however you might obtain them.

Thanks


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> It interesting Eric that you would think I have a sarcastic tone  because so many people feel that you and the other Eric work for Marriott because of the comments you make.  You also have real knack for posting for the sake of posting.
> 
> I suggested you talk to Allan for a balanced view.  You dont want to and thats fine you can continue to support the intent of keeping this post active.  The more people that are owners of the Ocean club that see this, the more owners that will sign up for the cause.  We continue to grow but do hope you recognize our right to post regardless of whether you agree.  I just want to remind you that you are not the moderator and we do not answer to you.    My words are genuine, I really care about this cause and I really believe that we will help change things.



Love,

You seem to be bashing me in the first part, but I will ignore it. I readily admit I can be VERY sarcastic when I want to be. If that was your point, then I agree. On posting for the sake of posting, I will confess that I did that on occasion, but not to the extent you are inferring.

I probably mischaracterized your tone. I took it more as self-defeating. I will heed your suggestion.

Thanks


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> I am not about to get into a debate with you about whether it is sound advice to post on a BB info that might well be the subject of litigation. If you think that any lawyer in their right mind would tell Mark, Allan or anyone else to do so, then I truly am wasting my breath and my time. Suffice to say I'd bet I know a tad more about the law than you do...lol.



It must be nice to revel in that air of self-superiority. Particularly when you know so much about the person of whom you are speaking. And I want to keep this civil, so I only offer the hope that you were not the one providing advice on the special election. If so tad might have been the right term to use. And keep in mind that this issue pertains to a particular area of the law. How can you be so sure that you have researched and studied this area to the extent I have? Do you have expertise in corporate law or corporate governance? I am not saying that I am or do, just pointing out the potential fallacy of your statement.

And as a knowledge person about the law, I think you understand how the legal system is constructed to mitigate the element of strategic surprise in legal proceedings.  However, your advice is sound in terms of not making statements in a public forum that would be used against you in court. I think my comments were more from the good old days when this had the opportunity to be peacefully resolved.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> There you go again with rhetoric.
> Understand one thing;this whole thing is not about convincing YOU.
> In my opinion there is sufficient data this group has to move forward with their attempt.
> *Since Allan was past pres. of the BOD,I'm sure he knows the laws better than anyone and is abiding by them.*
> The system is being tested and there is nothing wrong with that.
> In the end it's not YOU that will make the final decision.



I have a difference of opinion. And I point to the manner in which the special meeting issue was handled as the case in point. I notice no reports that special meeting issue is being legally challenged, when it was widely reported that MVCI was violating the by-laws.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> It must be nice to revel in that air of self-superiority. Particularly when you know so much about the person of whom you are speaking. And I want to keep this civil, so I only offer the hope that you were not the one providing advice on the special election. If so tad might have been the right term to use. And keep in mind that this issue pertains to a particular area of the law. How can you be so sure that you have researched and studied this area to the extent I have? Do you have expertise in corporate law or corporate governance? I am not saying that I am or do, just pointing out the potential fallacy of your statement.
> 
> And as a knowledge person about the law, I think you understand how the legal system is constructed to mitigate the element of strategic surprise in legal proceedings.  However, your advice is sound in terms of not making statements in a public forum that would be used against you in court. I think my comments were more from the good old days when this had the opportunity to be peacefully resolved.



Well perhaps we are both in the same profession  That said when you indicated that there would not be any reason for those involved to hold off posting strategy , info etc. it seemed to me that you couldnt possibly be a lawyer since that would be the first advice one would be giving. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.
And no I am not an Aruban lawyer so I wouldnt be the one giving advice 
Suffice to say however that I think even Marriott thinks the lawyer providing the advice must be a good one, or they wouldnt have tried to hire him....lol.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> The only thing you have to back yourself up might be the bylaws(rule of law).
> Is it not the right of owners who might see that there have been injustices committed to legally challenge those issues and bylaws that seem to protect those who have committed the injustices?
> Granted,sometimes rules and laws must change but must be followed until such a time they are deemed "unconstitutional".
> The statements I make are not to take sides but to allow an openness for the possibility that the group might be correct.
> Since you refuse to listen to "facts" gathered by the group, especially since given an invite,don't condemn.


A few points.  First, the facts are fairly limited.  The amounts of the fees, SA, actual changes of the BOD, the documted specifics of the BOD meeting, the lack of appropriate documentation on the "petition", the reason for the SA, that Marriott offered to pay a portion and the like ARE facts.  That this is going to cost the resort, and likely all of the owners, more in the long run is also apparent.  The rest is all accusation at this point that may or may not prove to be fact.  I don't see where a conversation with anyone on one side or the other will change all of that.  What would change that is if documents and documented transcripts were produced.  You mentioned the bylaws, several of us asked for them to be more informed and to better respond to specifics of the discussion but they never materialized citing the size of the documents as too much to copy.  

You are not an impartial party, this very post makes your bias obvious.  That's not to say you need to be neutral but to pose as unbiased is misleading.  



Luckybee said:


> What is interesting, is the number of owners who are aware of the situation and who are also very very concerned !


This has no bearing on the discussion.  Anyone who saw a major increase in fees AND a SA should be concerned.  It does not affect the reasonableness of either side of this issue one iota.  

To sum up the back and forth in this thread, there are a group of owners who feel wronged by Marriott (rightly or wrongly so, time will tell) and a group that are unwilling to accept the rhetoric without actual proof which is currently not available to us.  Given that there those that are clearly on one side of the equation, there really is little need for those of us looking at both sides to say much in support of the concerned owners group other than to address the factual information and approach of the group.  That does not make any of us Marriott apologists, the very suggestion that those that don't agree are Marriott plants is absurd from what I've seen on this thread.  It reeks of name calling rather than discussing the issues and facts.  I do realize that at the present time that it would be detrimental to any legal actions to post certain information but that is a cross that the group will have to bear, like a fight with one hand tied behind their back and their problem, IMO.  

Let me go on record as saying that I don't think the group will ever be able to prove their case but I do realize that doesn't necessarily make them wrong.


----------



## Zac495

ecwinch said:


> Ellen, you do make sense. My reply was based on the limited information you provided on your conversation with Mark. Given your explanation, I understand your POV better.
> 
> On your last point, we might disagree. Though they do not feel it, I think we are trying to be supportive of the other owners. It is like when you see someone about to make a major mistake - and you try to encourage them to evaluate the alternatives and potential adverse consequences of their actions. And if it was one person, at some point you go - well it's their life. But here we have a group focused on encourage others to make a similar mistake. So it is natural that it be confrontational.
> 
> As I said many times before. If this forum was not used as a pulpit for expressing a biased viewpoint, then I would probably be far less active.
> 
> You enjoy your vacations, wherever they might be and however you might obtain them.
> 
> Thanks



And you enjoy yours.  On that - we ALL agree!


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> There you go again with rhetoric.
> Understand one thing;this whole thing is not about convincing YOU.
> In my opinion there is sufficient data this group has to move forward with their attempt.
> Since Allan was past pres. of the BOD,I'm sure he knows the laws better than anyone and is abiding by them.
> The system is being tested and there is nothing wrong with that.
> In the end it's not YOU that will make the final decision.



Of course it wouldn't be me making a final decision - whatever gave you the idea that I thought it would be?  I was asked why the suggestion to contact Allan directly wasn't taken and that's what I was answering.

But now I have a question.  What makes you think that Allan's position as past president of the BOD would automatically mean that he would abide by laws?  After all, Mark's first few posts here were very clear about the fact that Allan suggested, while he was still a member of the BOD, that owners may want to consider a lawsuit against Marriott/MVCI/and that BOD.  Do you honestly believe that was ethical behavior for a BOD member, or that the obligations of the position wouldn't prohibit that sort of behavior?


----------



## Dean

SueDonJ said:


> Do you honestly believe that was ethical behavior for a BOD member, or that the obligations of the position wouldn't prohibit that sort of behavior?


Without getting into ethics, I suspect there is a BOD oath that would prohibit certain actions and that we've gone past that line.  Time will tell if that makes a former member of the BOD brave or inappropriate.  I purposefully want to withhold that judgement simply because I don't know or have a way of knowing at this point and there's a good chance we may never have the info.  Even if this gets settled in favor of the group in question, it's unlikely Marriott will accept fault or that it will be proven in court that the accusations are true.  I'd say the MOST they could expect would be a settlement with Marriott paying the entire thing minus legal fees with no acceptance of guilt.  I'll go on record as stating this settlement would NOT be enough to settle the issue in my book as I see them innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Of course it wouldn't be me making a final decision - whatever gave you the idea that I thought it would be?  I was asked why the suggestion to contact Allan directly wasn't taken and that's what I was answering.
> 
> But now I have a question.  What makes you think that Allan's position as past president of the BOD would automatically mean that he would abide by laws?  After all, Mark's first few posts here were very clear about the fact that Allan suggested, while he was still a member of the BOD, that owners may want to consider a lawsuit against Marriott/MVCI/and that BOD.  Do you honestly believe that was ethical behavior for a BOD member, or that the obligations of the position wouldn't prohibit that sort of behavior?



Speaking of ethics and moralsersonaly I would have a great deal of respect for an elected official who chose to deviate from obligatory duties in favor of standing up to what he/she believed to be in the best interest of those they represent.
I have no problem with that idea.
I do NOT say that this is what happened in THIS case.
I happen to be idealistic at times.That is one of my downfalls.
History abounds us with those kinds of people.
Some even became heros.
So you choose not to listen to the group's concerns as they see it,which is OK.Your'e not obligated to agree with them.Instead you choose to rattle that sacred book(the bylaws) without question.
That any deviation from it's written text is grounds for excommunication is outragious.
Sorry for choice of words.English and writing were never my strong points.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Speaking of ethics and moralsersonaly I would have a great deal of respect for an elected official who chose to deviate from obligatory duties in favor of standing up to what he/she believed to be in the best interest of those they represent.
> I have no problem with that idea.
> I do NOT say that this is what happened in THIS case.
> I happen to be idealistic at times.That is one of my downfalls.
> History abounds us with those kinds of people.
> Some even became heros.
> So you choose not to listen to the group's concerns as they see it,which is OK.Your'e not obligated to agree with them.Instead you choose to rattle that sacred book(the bylaws) without question.
> That any deviation from it's written text is grounds for excommunication is outragious.
> Sorry for choice of words.English and writing were never my strong points.



I think you mean to say as long as he acts to protect the interests of the majority, rather than your statement of "best interest of those they represent."

For otherwise, your position would seem to justify the actions of Saddam Hussein or any other despot that attains power but represents a minority interest. 

And that is the problem. Without a clear mandate, how did he know that he was representing the interests of majority. Regardless, when you apply your logic to the positions of power, it can used to justify any action. It only requires that he "believe" his actions are just. I can provide numerous examples where someone did harm by abandoning his obligatory duties in pursuit of his misguided belief.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> I think you mean to say as long as he acts to protect the interests of the majority, rather than your statement of "best interest of those they represent."
> 
> For otherwise, your position would seem to justify the actions of Saddam Hussein or any other despot that attains power but represents a minority interest.
> 
> And that is the problem. Without a clear mandate, how did he know that he was representing the interests of majority. Regardless, when you apply your logic to the positions of power, it can used to justify any action. It only requires that he "believe" his actions are just. I can provide numerous examples where someone did harm by abandoning his obligatory duties in pursuit of his misguided belief.



As stated before,the majority are ignorant nor don't care enough.
That's why the letter was written as it was in order to prevent a possibility of a majority to take action.
I said possibility.Therefore it was taken out of the equation.
Comparing this situation to Hussein is a bit much don't you think?
Hussein became a dictator and lived the high life at the expense of his constituants.Allan's motive is for the benefit of his former constituants now co-owners.
If the group turns out to be right,you put the label of dictatorship on the wrong party.
I understand that rules are to be followed but there are serious concerns here.
Take the time and find out what they are.You MIGHT understand where it' coming from.You don't have to agree.
I am open to discussion of both sides but Marriott and the BOD have NOT added there point of view regarding these issues line by line.
If any body brings up the subject that they cannot due to possible litigation in the works,then apply the same train of thought to the group's.Fair is fair.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> Speaking of ethics and moralsersonaly I would have a great deal of respect for an elected official who chose to deviate from obligatory duties in favor of standing up to what he/she believed to be in the best interest of those they represent.
> I have no problem with that idea.
> I do NOT say that this is what happened in THIS case.
> I happen to be idealistic at times.That is one of my downfalls.
> History abounds us with those kinds of people.
> Some even became heros.
> So you choose not to listen to the group's concerns as they see it,which is OK.Your'e not obligated to agree with them.Instead you choose to rattle that sacred book(the bylaws) without question.
> That any deviation from it's written text is grounds for excommunication is outragious.
> Sorry for choice of words.English and writing were never my strong points.



But Modo, doesn't this completely discount that I HAVE listened to this group's concerns as they see them, _as they've related them here_, and those are the concerns that I've criticized?

I like your choice of words - the bylaws as sacred, deviation as sacrilege, excommunication for nonconformance?  The words are a little extreme, sure, but your thoughts make sense to me.  And maybe you're correct - I'm more inclined than not to believe that Marriott/MVCI/the BOD will demand that every single legal "t" will need to be crossed and every single legal "i" will need to be dotted if your group's efforts are to be successful.  But isn't that what you folks are demanding of them, _[edit] that they honor every protection afforded to owners as stipulated in the ownership documents?_

You asked in an earlier post something along the lines of, "don't owners have a right to challenge the bylaws and/or try to change them?"  Of course they do - in fact, that right is written into the bylaws.  But there is a correct way to do so.


----------



## Zac495

97 more posts to 2000!


----------



## marksue

*Email sent to those who did not send back the scare tactic mail*

Sounds to me not many people are responding and MVCI is getting concerned.  It is funny they want the owners to make an informed decision, yet they don't want to give them the entire stroy to make that informed decision.  So once again lack of transparency and truth from MVCI.  

Time for Sue and Eric to attack this email  


 August 4, 2009

Dear Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club Owner:

By now you should have received the July 16, 2009 letter giving you the opportunity (by means of checking a box and signing the declaration) to indicate whether or not you authorize having your personal contact information (home mailing address and personal email address) released to individual Aruba Ocean Club owners who may request such information. We believe that it is very important to give owners the opportunity to make an informed decision regarding this issue, and we therefore encourage you to complete and return the signed declaration as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Coöperative Vereniging Marriott Vacation Club International of Aruba Association


----------



## marksue

Zac  95 more to go


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> Sounds to me not many people are responding and MVCI is getting concerned.  It is funny they want the owners to make an informed decision, yet they don't want to give them the entire stroy to make that informed decision.  So once again lack of transparency and truth from MVCI.
> 
> Time for Sue and Eric to attack this email
> 
> 
> August 4, 2009
> 
> Dear Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club Owner:
> 
> By now you should have received the July 16, 2009 letter giving you the opportunity (by means of checking a box and signing the declaration) to indicate whether or not you authorize having your personal contact information (home mailing address and personal email address) released to individual Aruba Ocean Club owners who may request such information. We believe that it is very important to give owners the opportunity to make an informed decision regarding this issue, and we therefore encourage you to complete and return the signed declaration as soon as possible.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Coöperative Vereniging Marriott Vacation Club International of Aruba Association



They're following up to get as many responses as possible but they've done so with no obvious or veiled encouragement or bias towards either themselves or your group.  It's a good thing that they're encouraging owner participation, isn't it?  I think so, and if they haven't received responses from 100% of the owners, then I would think you would welcome this follow-up.

I wonder though, Mark, how/where you see the, "... Sounds to me not many people are responding and MVCI is getting concerned ..." in this letter.  Aren't you now applying a slant or bias for which you condemned Marriott/MVCI/the BOD in their first letter?


----------



## marksue

SueDonJ said:


> I wonder though, Mark, how/where you see the, "... Sounds to me not many people are responding and MVCI is getting concerned ..." in this letter.  Aren't you now applying a slant or bias for which you condemned Marriott/MVCI/the BOD in their first letter?



The only other time they have done this is this past elecetion when they did not have enough votes and saw Allan's name on the proxies.  Never for any other BOD election or other mailing has Marriott ever followed it up with more emails asking people to send responses back.  The point is they did not give the truth to the letter and continue to not be transparent as to the issue.


----------



## Luckybee

Dont forget the title of the email as well ...."immediate response *required*"...interesting choice of words...but also funny....I thought it was spam that got through my filter...almost didnt open it...lol


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> The only other time they have done this is this past elecetion when they did not have enough votes and saw Allan's name on the proxies.  Never for any other BOD election or other mailing has Marriott ever followed it up with more emails asking people to send responses back.  The point is they did not give the truth to the letter and continue to not be transparent as to the issue.



Ah, but they did have enough votes, didn't they?

I really am not getting this, "they're not transparent enough" thing.  Especially as you use it here, Mark, because this is YOUR issue, not theirs!  Your group is an adversary of theirs who is trying to bolster more support from other owners for your issue against Marriott/MVCI/the BOD.  How can you possibly expect that your adversary would help you in any way that they're not required to do so, in any way that might actually harm them?  I don't get it.


----------



## lovearuba

*yes, you were right*



marksue said:


> Sounds to me not many people are responding and MVCI is getting concerned. It is funny they want the owners to make an informed decision, yet they don't want to give them the entire stroy to make that informed decision. So once again lack of transparency and truth from MVCI.
> 
> Time for Sue and Eric to attack this email
> 
> 
> August 4, 2009
> 
> Dear Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club Owner:
> 
> By now you should have received the July 16, 2009 letter giving you the opportunity (by means of checking a box and signing the declaration) to indicate whether or not you authorize having your personal contact information (home mailing address and personal email address) released to individual Aruba Ocean Club owners who may request such information. We believe that it is very important to give owners the opportunity to make an informed decision regarding this issue, and we therefore encourage you to complete and return the signed declaration as soon as possible.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Coöperative Vereniging Marriott Vacation Club International of Aruba Association


 
I would not respond it just gives more fuel to the fire.


----------



## modoaruba

marksue said:


> Sounds to me not many people are responding and MVCI is getting concerned.  It is funny they want the owners to make an informed decision, yet they don't want to give them the entire stroy to make that informed decision.  So once again lack of transparency and truth from MVCI.
> 
> Time for Sue and Eric to attack this email
> 
> 
> August 4, 2009
> 
> Dear Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club Owner:
> 
> By now you should have received the July 16, 2009 letter giving you the opportunity (by means of checking a box and signing the declaration) to indicate whether or not you authorize having your personal contact information (home mailing address and personal email address) released to individual Aruba Ocean Club owners who may request such information. We believe that it is very important to give owners the opportunity to make an informed decision regarding this issue, and we therefore encourage you to complete and return the signed declaration as soon as possible.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Coöperative Vereniging Marriott Vacation Club International of Aruba Association



Try to tell those people the sky is blue and see what you get.
Who gives a hoot?
All you guys are trying to get across is to have the owners read your concerns,which also happens to be all of the owner's concerns one way or another,get Marriott and the BOD to respond,and make a decision.
This opposition that you face in this blog and the joy they derive is weird to me.
It bothers me that they would try to demean your quest.The holy book is always thrown at you guys.
That's why I brought up motive.
Maybe Freud would have analyzed it as anal?


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> As stated before,the majority are ignorant nor don't care enough.
> That's why the letter was written as it was in order to prevent a possibility of a majority to take action.
> I said possibility.Therefore it was taken out of the equation.
> Comparing this situation to Hussein is a bit much don't you think?
> Hussein became a dictator and lived the high life at the expense of his constituants.Allan's motive is for the benefit of his former constituants now co-owners.
> If the group turns out to be right,you put the label of dictatorship on the wrong party.
> I understand that rules are to be followed but there are serious concerns here.
> Take the time and find out what they are.You MIGHT understand where it' coming from.You don't have to agree.
> I am open to discussion of both sides but Marriott and the BOD have NOT added there point of view regarding these issues line by line.
> If any body brings up the subject that they cannot due to possible litigation in the works,then apply the same train of thought to the group's.Fair is fair.



For clarity, I was not comparing Allan to Saddam. I was trying to understand your statement better by pointing out an example that your statement seemed to support, but I doubt that you personally did.

And yes, the winners write the history books. If Allan wins, then the history will be "the heroic Allan stood up to the evil MVCI". If he loses he will be labeled a "mis-guided fool that caused problems".

In terms of why the BoD does not post here, I can only point to the explanation that Mark offered when we asked why Allan could not early in this process.


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> Ah, but they did have enough votes, didn't they?
> 
> I really am not getting this, "they're not transparent enough" thing.  Especially as you use it here, Mark, because this is YOUR issue, not theirs!  Your group is an adversary of theirs who is trying to bolster more support from other owners for your issue against Marriott/MVCI/the BOD.  How can you possibly expect that your adversary would help you in any way that they're not required to do so, in any way that might actually harm them?  I don't get it.



Even though the letter is asking if the owners want to opt out of the members list policy for now and the future, Mark feels that MVCI should provide a complete account of the crusade.

If he got that, he then would accuse them of mis-representing his position and the history.

For an anarchist, it is the perfect situation. Criticize them when they communicate, criticize them when they do not. Ignore any and factual information that fails to support my biased position. Do not defend my position because of the "pending" legal action. But pop in every so often and stir the pot.

Mark,

BTW - have you provided them with the specific reason you want the member's list, or are you suggesting that they just make one up?


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> Even though the letter is asking if the owners want to opt out of the members list policy for now and the future, Mark feels that MVCI should provide a complete account of the crusade.
> 
> If he got that, he then would accuse them of mis-representing his position and the history.
> 
> For an anarchist, it is the perfect situation. Criticize them when they communicate, criticize them when they do not. Ignore any and factual information that fails to support my biased position. Do not defend my position because of the "pending" legal action. But pop in every so often and stir the pot.
> 
> Mark,
> 
> BTW - have you provided them with the specific reason you want the member's list, or are you suggesting that they just make one up?



You were right it is like a moth to the flame because your inflammatory posts are truly difficult to ignore. . You have the audacity to say that Mark is stirring the pot when in fact it is just you and Sue who do so. Your sense of reality is truly distorted imho. All Mark or any of the owners have asked for is that the letter simply should not have misrepresented the reason it was being requested which it CLEARLY did. If you havent noticed, and obviously you havent the only ones who seem to be complaining about Marks actions are NON OWNERS! The majority of those who have become aware of the situation who are owners are on board and those numbers are growing daily.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> You were right it is like a moth to the flame because your inflammatory posts are truly difficult to ignore. . You have the audacity to say that Mark is stirring the pot when in fact it is just you and Sue who do so. Your sense of reality is truly distorted imho. All Mark or any of the owners have asked for is that the letter simply should not have misrepresented the reason it was being requested which it CLEARLY did. If you havent noticed, and obviously you havent the only ones who seem to be complaining about Marks actions are NON OWNERS! The majority of those who have become aware of the situation who are owners are on board and those numbers are growing daily.



And help me again with how they misrepresented the reason. I think they were clear on the reason, i.e.

_"An individual member has recently instructed an attorney in Aruba to notify the association of the members intention to sue the association before the court in Aruba if the board does not provide all of the names and personal correspondence addresses of the associations 8570 members to this individual member or his attorney."_

How much clearer do you want them to be?  Better yet, tell me what you think they should have written.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> And help me again with how they misrepresented the reason. I think they were clear on the reason, i.e.
> 
> _"An individual member has recently instructed an attorney in Aruba to notify the association of the members intention to sue the association before the court in Aruba if the board does not provide all of the names and personal correspondence addresses of the associations 8570 members to this individual member or his attorney."_
> 
> How much clearer do you want them to be?  Better yet, tell what you think they should have written.



Already did that ! Read the entire letter again. Then read both my posts and others. It was the reason that the names were being requested that was misrepresented.....you've already been told how that could have been corrected easily ! But perhaps you were too busy putting the Marriott spin on things to notice.


----------



## timeos2

*Don't ever give away valuable access*



Luckybee said:


> Already did that ! Read the entire letter again. It was the reason that the names were being requested that was misrepresented.....you've already been told how that could have been corrected easily ! But perhaps you were too busy putting the Marriott spin on things to notice.



This whole line of back and forth over the release of the owners list to a third party (owners or not) makes me VERY happy that the State of Florida - along with many others - specifically PROHIBIT such a release. While we fought a similar battle over resort control some years back we, as the "right" side of the fence of course, felt it was unfair and that we were being denied fair access to tell our side of the tale. 

But after the smoke cleared and we carefully followed the rules and the management had to send out our newsletter (at cost) we ended up winning the control battle and appreciate the protection that preventing unfettered access to that list offered all of us as owners - developer or not. 

There are plenty of companies, people and groups that would LOVE to have access to the owners list at most resorts. It is an extremely valuable commodity and we learned that protecting it to the greatest extent possible is the best way to go. Doing things by the rules means you CAN reach owners but under a process that does all it can to avoid abuse of that valuable list. I applaud Marriott/Management for protecting the owners and making sure proper procedure is followed before anyone gets direct contact using that private mailing list. Anyone demanding unfettered access for whatever reason (as an example an owner at our resort wanted to send a letter to every owner touting their "collection" service - a potential goldmine for them that would be tough to explain clearly to owners in a short letter. When presented with the up front cost and the need to have it be a legitimate owner contact they backed off) just hasn't thought through the potential for abuse.  Spam, junk mail and more are just the tip of the iceberg. There is no way I'd want my information divulged by my resort. There is enough in the public record for anyone that wants to pay to search it out in time or money - don't make it easy for them by handing them the keys to the kingdom of the owners listing. 

Marriott isn't doing anything unfair in demanding the proper procedures be used for any type of mailing.


----------



## ecwinch

timeos2 said:


> This whole line of back and forth over the release of the owners list to a third party (owners or not) makes me VERY happy that the State of Florida - along with many others - specifically PROHIBIT such a release. While we fought a similar battle over resort control some years back we, as the "right" side of the fence of course, felt it was unfair and that we were being denied fair access to tell our side of the tale.
> 
> But after the smoke cleared and we carefully followed the rules and the management had to send out our newsletter (at cost) we ended up winning the control battle and appreciate the protection that preventing unfettered access to that list offered all of us as owners - developer or not.
> 
> There are plenty of companies, people and groups that would LOVE to have access to the owners list at most resorts. It is an extremely valuable commodity and we learned that protecting it to the greatest extent possible is the best way to go. Doing things by the rules means you CAN reach owners but under a process that does all it can to avoid abuse of that valuable list. I applaud Marriott/Management for protecting the owners and making sure proper procedure is followed before anyone gets direct contact using that private mailing list. Anyone demanding unfettered access for whatever reason (as an example an owner at our resort wanted to send a letter to every owner touting their "collection" service - a potential goldmine for them that would be tough to explain clearly to owners in a short letter. When presented with the up front cost and the need to have it be a legitimate owner contact they backed off) just hasn't thought through the potential for abuse.  Spam, junk mail and more are just the tip of the iceberg. There is no way I'd want my information divulged by my resort. There is enough in the public record for anyone that wants to pay to search it out in time or money - don't make it easy for them by handing them the keys to the kingdom of the owners listing.
> 
> Marriott isn't doing anything unfair in demanding the proper procedures be used for any type of mailing.



Here comes the Bill Marriott paid off Jeb Bush stories.

You non-owner.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Already did that ! Read the entire letter again. Then read both my posts and others. It was the reason that the names were being requested that was misrepresented.....you've already been told how that could have been corrected easily ! But perhaps you were too busy putting the Marriott spin on things to notice.



Wait, let me put on my Special MarkSue "MVCI is evil" glasses and re-read the letter. Oh yeah, I see what you mean. It is right their in invisible ink.

No, Lucky. As someone with a great knowledge of the law, you should be able to see that they never say MarkSue is asking for the list so he can provide it to a tele-marketer. You are making that his reason, AOC is not.  

The letter could be better written, but it does not misrepresent the reason that is prompting AOC to contact the owner. Nor does it even state Mark's reason for making the request. It outlines the potential consequences of MVCI providing the list to Mark. It never states that those potential consequences are the reason for his request.


----------



## Luckybee

timeos2 said:


> This whole line of back and forth over the release of the owners list to a third party (owners or not) makes me VERY happy that the State of Florida - along with many others - specifically PROHIBIT such a release. While we fought a similar battle over resort control some years back we, as the "right" side of the fence of course, felt it was unfair and that we were being denied fair access to tell our side of the tale.
> 
> But after the smoke cleared and we carefully followed the rules and the management had to send out our newsletter (at cost) we ended up winning the control battle and appreciate the protection that preventing unfettered access to that list offered all of us as owners - developer or not.
> 
> There are plenty of companies, people and groups that would LOVE to have access to the owners list at most resorts. It is an extremely valuable commodity and we learned that protecting it to the greatest extent possible is the best way to go. Doing things by the rules means you CAN reach owners but under a process that does all it can to avoid abuse of that valuable list. I applaud Marriott/Management for protecting the owners and making sure proper procedure is followed before anyone gets direct contact using that private mailing list. Anyone demanding unfettered access for whatever reason (as an example an owner at our resort wanted to send a letter to every owner touting their "collection" service - a potential goldmine for them that would be tough to explain clearly to owners in a short letter. When presented with the up front cost and the need to have it be a legitimate owner contact they backed off) just hasn't thought through the potential for abuse.  Spam, junk mail and more are just the tip of the iceberg. There is no way I'd want my information divulged by my resort. There is enough in the public record for anyone that wants to pay to search it out in time or money - don't make it easy for them by handing them the keys to the kingdom of the owners listing.
> 
> Marriott isn't doing anything unfair in demanding the proper procedures be used for any type of mailing.



Therein lies the problem. Marriott isnt demanding that any proper procedures be followed, rather they are both refusing to allow a mailing by anyone other than them and also refusing to allow access to the list. In actual fact they are preventing a substantial number of owners from acquiring any info other than Marriotts. There are still a significant number of owners who are not aware at all of the situation at the resort and by that I mean no knowledge at all that there is a group attempting to make changes in the way the BOD operates, and attempting to have bod members replaced. Whether one agrees with the "concerned owners group " or not the owners should have an opportunity to make there position clear to all owners, and not just those who read message boards.

It seems that the only way that the mailing will get done is after court procedures are instituted and dealt with.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> Wait, let me put on my Special MarkSue "MVCI is evil" glasses and re-read the letter. Oh yeah, I see what you mean. It is right their in invisible ink.
> 
> No, Lucky. As someone with a great knowledge of the law, you should be able to see that they never say MarkSue is asking for the list so he can provide it to a tele-marketer. You are making that his reason, AOC is not.
> 
> The letter could be better written, but it does not misrepresent the reason that is prompting AOC to contact the owner. Nor does it even state Mark's reason for making the request. It outlines the potential consequences of MVCI providing the list to Mark. It never states that those potential consequences are the reason for his request.



Nah it doesnt leave that impression at all....guess I must be mistaken...so are all the other's I asked about it. You see this is why this is so silly and why I do try to avoid this as much as it pains me to do. You wont even agree on the obvious.  If Mark of any of the other other owners pointed out that the sky was blue, you would say nope there were clouds in the sky, but if Marriott said the same thing you would indicate "well of course it was blue ". 
If you truly believe that the letter was not misleading I am not going to waste any more of my breath debating with you. But since it would be impossible for anyone to truly believe that then I have to accept that you are only here to stir the pot on behalf of Marriott and that is unfortunate.


----------



## ecwinch

Here is how I would have rewritten the letter to clear up any ambiguity. The edit is relatively minor, and in no way changes the reason for the way the request is being made. It just takes some detail that is buried in the last paragraph in moves it up into the beginning part of the letter:


As you may know on May 15 2009, the Annual General Membership meeting of the cooperative Vereniging Marriott Vacation Club international of Aruba (the association) was held and three board members were elected. The draft annual meeting minutes have been posted on the resort page of my vacation club.com as well as our dedicated website arubaoceanclub.com. Since then , we have been working diligently on several important issues. 

The board has the duty to inform you of the following development that requires your urgent attention .

An individual member has recently instructed an attorney in Aruba to notify the association of the members intention to sue the association before the court in Aruba if the board does not provide all of the names and personal correspondence addresses of the associations 8570 members to this individual member or his attorney . 

*Given the sensitive nature of your personal information, the Board is providing you with an opportunity to "opt out" from this, and any future requests for your personal information from your fellow owners.*

The board has the duty to consider all possible scenarios and is very reluctant to provide to provide your personal information such as name and personal addresses ( as currently on file) in light of possible misuse of such information, privacy considerations, and the real possibility of the personal information of our 8570 members getting into the hands of, for example , telemarketers or the personal information being improperly handled or distributed .

While privacy laws in the United States may protect your personal information from being made public, the board has to take into account that the association may be compelled by an Aruban court to release and transfer members personal data. For this reason, we are giving you the opportunity(by means of checking a box and signing the attached declaration), to indicate whether or not you authorize or do not authorize having your personal data as described above shared with individual members who may request your personal information. If you do not want your information shared with individual members, please check the appropriate box on the attached declaration and we will try, as much as possible to honour your request.

Sincerely,


----------



## timeos2

*It has to be done correctly*



Luckybee said:


> Therein lies the problem. Marriott isnt demanding that any proper procedures be followed, rather they are both refusing to allow a mailing by anyone other than them and also refusing to allow access to the list. In actual fact they are preventing a substantial number of owners from acquiring any info other than Marriotts. There are still a significant number of owners who are not aware at all of the situation at the resort and by that I mean no knowledge at all that there is a group attempting to make changes in the way the BOD operates, and attempting to have bod members replaced. Whether one agrees with the "concerned owners group " or not the owners should have an opportunity to make there position clear to all owners, and not just those who read message boards.
> 
> It seems that the only way that the mailing will get done is after court procedures are instituted and dealt with.



If the rules are similar to what we came up against then ONLY the management has the right to send out letters for the Association at large. They do not have to give you the rules they just need to be given a proper request and take it through whatever process the law or docs or both require. The process should be identified in your documents or by timeshare laws/regulations. If not then a simple request should generate the needed information (if that has been done and Marriott failed to follow through with the requirements that would be the first actual misstep I've seen in all this. But I don't see anywhere in these 1000+ messages that a proper request for a mailing was ever made). And they can demand that the people looking for that access pay for it - not on the owners dime. Nothing illegal or underhanded about any of that. Has the proper request been made and if so by who?


----------



## Luckybee

Removed my own post


----------



## Luckybee

Removed my own post


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> ... rather they are both refusing to allow a mailing by anyone other than them ...



As John, Eric and Dean (and probably others who I can't recall if you go back to the beginning of the thread) have all mentioned, there should be a provision that allows for any owner to have the BOD and/or MVCI send out a mailing to all of the owners if that mailing is limited to owner concerns and/or abides by certain restrictions.  Whether or not the individual owner or MVCI would be responsible for the cost of the mailing has been debated, but not whether or not the provision exists.  I don't remember, actually, if it was ever determined that such a provision exists.

Are you saying now that someone from the group followed explicitly the requirements of any such provision, crafted an acceptable letter and asked the BOD/MVCI to send it out to all owners?  And was subsequently denied by the BOD/MVCI?  That's certainly cause for concern, if it did happen exactly that way, but I don't remember any such thing being discussed here.

I know, I know, everything of importance isn't discussed here.  But I'm asking specifically about this one thing because you have mentioned it here.


----------



## ecwinch

Here is what I see when I put on my MarkSue Special "MVCI is evil" goggles:

As you may know on May 15 2009, the Annual General Membership meeting of the cooperative Vereniging Marriott Vacation Club international of Aruba (the association) was held and three board members were elected. The draft annual meeting minutes have been posted on the resort page of my vacation club.com as well as our dedicated website arubaoceanclub.com. Since then , we have been working diligently on several important issues. 

The board has the duty to inform you of the following development that requires your urgent attention .

An individual member has recently instructed an attorney in Aruba to notify the association of the members intention to sue the association before the court in Aruba if the board does not provide all of the names and personal correspondence addresses of the associations 8570 members to this individual member or his attorney . *This member is seeking your information so he can attempt to unseat your duly elected Board of Directors. We of course like our unpaid positions, and want to prevent this from happening.*

The board has the duty to consider all possible scenarios *that MarkSue might* use this information and is very reluctant to provide your personal information such as name and personal addresses ( as currently on file). In particular we are concerned that *the individual requesting* this information might want it to possible misuse such information, and the real possibility of the personal information of our 8570 members getting into the hands of being sold *by MarkSue* to telemarketers or the personal information being improperly handled or distributed *by MarkSue*.

While privacy laws in the United States may protect your personal information from being made public, the board has to take into account that the association may be compelled by an Aruban court to release and transfer members personal data. For this reason, we are giving you the opportunity(by means of checking a box and signing the attached declaration), to indicate whether or not you authorize or do not authorize having your personal data as described above shared with individual members who may request your personal information. If you do not want your information shared with individual members, please check the appropriate box on the attached declaration and we will try, as much as possible to honour your request.

Sincerely,


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> Here is what I see when I put on my MarkSue Special "MVCI is evil" googles:
> 
> As you may know on May 15 2009, the Annual General Membership meeting of the cooperative Vereniging Marriott Vacation Club international of Aruba (the association) was held and three board members were elected. The draft annual meeting minutes have been posted on the resort page of my vacation club.com as well as our dedicated website arubaoceanclub.com. Since then , we have been working diligently on several important issues.
> 
> The board has the duty to inform you of the following development that requires your urgent attention .
> 
> An individual member has recently instructed an attorney in Aruba to notify the association of the members intention to sue the association before the court in Aruba if the board does not provide all of the names and personal correspondence addresses of the associations 8570 members to this individual member or his attorney . *This member is seeking your information so he can attempt to unseat your duly elected Board of Directors. We of course like our unpaid positions, and want to prevent this from happening.*
> 
> The board has the duty to consider all possible scenarios *that MarkSue might* use this information and is very reluctant to provide your personal information such as name and personal addresses ( as currently on file). In particular we are concerned that *the individual requesting* this information might want it to possible misuse such information, and the real possibility of the personal information of our 8570 members getting into the hands of being sold *by MarkSue* to telemarketers or the personal information being improperly handled or distributed *by MarkSue*.
> 
> While privacy laws in the United States may protect your personal information from being made public, the board has to take into account that the association may be compelled by an Aruban court to release and transfer members personal data. For this reason, we are giving you the opportunity(by means of checking a box and signing the attached declaration), to indicate whether or not you authorize or do not authorize having your personal data as described above shared with individual members who may request your personal information. If you do not want your information shared with individual members, please check the appropriate box on the attached declaration and we will try, as much as possible to honour your request.
> 
> Sincerely,



This is pure and utter BS and no one has suggested that this is what should have been sent....But once again....keep spinning on behalf of Marriott....your true motivation is definitely showing.


----------



## ecwinch

You cannot silence the critics when they gag themselves.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> This is pure and utter BS and no one has suggested that this is what should have been sent....But once again....keep spinning on behalf of Marriott....your true motivation is definitely showing.



Then show me how you think it should have been written. You say they are misrepresenting Mark's reason. I do not see that they ever state Mark's reason.

I am simply pointing out the fallacy of your statement.


----------



## SueDonJ

timeos2 said:


> If the rules are similar to what we came up against then ONLY the management has the right to send out letters for the Association at large. They do not have to give you the rules they just need to be given a proper request and take it through whatever process the law or docs or both require. The process should be identified in your documents or by timeshare laws/regulations. If not then a simple request should generate the needed information (if that has been done and Marriott failed to follow through with the requirements that would be the first actual misstep I've seen in all this. But I don't see anywhere in these 1000+ messages that a proper request for a mailing was ever made). And they can demand that the people looking for that access pay for it - not on the owners dime. Nothing illegal or underhanded about any of that. Has the proper request been made and if so by who?



Yeah, that's what I meant.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> Then show me how you think it should have been written. You say they are misrepresenting Mark's reason. I do not see that they ever state Mark's reason.
> 
> I am simply pointing out the fallacy of your statement.



As I said before....no one could truly believe what you wrote...so again I wont debate it with you...but I think it is great that your true motivation is now showing in a very obvious way


----------



## lovearuba

*your rights*



timeos2 said:


> This whole line of back and forth over the release of the owners list to a third party (owners or not) makes me VERY happy that the State of Florida - along with many others - specifically PROHIBIT such a release. While we fought a similar battle over resort control some years back we, as the "right" side of the fence of course, felt it was unfair and that we were being denied fair access to tell our side of the tale.
> 
> But after the smoke cleared and we carefully followed the rules and the management had to send out our newsletter (at cost) we ended up winning the control battle and appreciate the protection that preventing unfettered access to that list offered all of us as owners - developer or not.
> 
> There are plenty of companies, people and groups that would LOVE to have access to the owners list at most resorts. It is an extremely valuable commodity and we learned that protecting it to the greatest extent possible is the best way to go. Doing things by the rules means you CAN reach owners but under a process that does all it can to avoid abuse of that valuable list. I applaud Marriott/Management for protecting the owners and making sure proper procedure is followed before anyone gets direct contact using that private mailing list. Anyone demanding unfettered access for whatever reason (as an example an owner at our resort wanted to send a letter to every owner touting their "collection" service - a potential goldmine for them that would be tough to explain clearly to owners in a short letter. When presented with the up front cost and the need to have it be a legitimate owner contact they backed off) just hasn't thought through the potential for abuse. Spam, junk mail and more are just the tip of the iceberg. There is no way I'd want my information divulged by my resort. There is enough in the public record for anyone that wants to pay to search it out in time or money - don't make it easy for them by handing them the keys to the kingdom of the owners listing.
> 
> Marriott isn't doing anything unfair in demanding the proper procedures be used for any type of mailing.


 
This prohibition that you are supporting diminishes the rights you have based on the bylaws.  If you have no right to request the information to get the owners to support a special vote to remove members from the board so that the members on the board are not Marriott puppets, then you have no rights.  As an owner, I thought I had rights and I am willing to fight for them.  We are following the bylaws but it appears that Marriott is afraid that the remaining owners may also support this and guess what.  Marriott wants to keep control and this is just another delay.  Delays happen with any worthwhile change. If we just go away and give up Marriott wins. The fight is worthwhle to us.  Some folks like status quo, others work for change.  I choose to fight for change as long as I am confident the change is needed.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> This prohibition that you are supporting diminishes the rights you have based on the bylaws.  If you have no right to request the information to get the owners to support a special vote to remove members from the board so that the members on the board are not Marriott puppets, then you have no rights.  As an owner, I thought I had rights and I am willing to fight for them.  We are following the bylaws but it appears that Marriott is afraid that the remaining owners may also support this and guess what.  Marriott wants to keep control and this is just another delay.  Delays happen with any worthwhile change. If we just go away and give up Marriott wins. The fight is worthwhle to us.  Some folks like status quo, others work for change.  I choose to fight for change as long as I am confident the change is needed.



You might want to re-read his post closely, and note the part where he says that followed procedure and the info had to go out in the newsletter.

Take off the MarkSue goggles first though. They are obscuring your vision.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> As I said before....no one could truly believe what you wrote...so again I wont debate it with you...but I think it is great that your true motivation is now showing in a very obvious way



Lucky,

You seem very unable to support your position with much more than rhetoric. So your decision is probably appropriate. I think this is the third time I have asked for some detail, only to have you quit. I would think with the abundance of facts supporting your position, these would be easy requests.

In regard for my support for MVCI, I do not think I have hid the fact that I think they are a good company that is being defamed here. You do not share that opinion, and I respect that.

Thanks


----------



## ecwinch

John,

Do Sue, Lucky, Modo, Love, Dean, and I get some special recognition when we push this thing over 2000 posts?

I mean like a letter or something? And not a letter recommending that we be committed to the home for the hopelessly bored. 

Thanks


----------



## lovearuba

*no googles*



ecwinch said:


> You might want to re-read his post closely, and note the part where he says that followed procedure and the info had to go out in the newsletter.
> 
> Take off the MarkSue googles first though. They are obscuring your vision.


 
Do you mean goggles?  I have 20/20 by the way.  I've never met Marksue, the only thing we have in common is our timeshare in aruba.


----------



## lovearuba

*prize*



ecwinch said:


> John,
> 
> Do Sue, Lucky, Modo, Love, Dean, and I get some special recognition when we push this thing over 2000 posts?
> 
> I mean like a letter or something? And not a letter recommending that we be committed to the home for the hopelessly bored.
> 
> Thanks


 
I think you get the prize for the poster with so much time on their hands.


----------



## Dean

ecwinch said:


> John,
> 
> Do Sue, Lucky, Modo, Love, Dean, and I get some special recognition when we push this thing over 2000 posts?
> 
> I mean like a letter or something? And not a letter recommending that we be committed to the home for the hopelessly bored.
> 
> Thanks


No, just "I told you so" rights in a couple of years.  I do hope some good comes of this but I'm having trouble thinking of anything good that can come in the situation noted, at least without an equal amount of bad to balance it out.  Even in the best case scenario I noted (Marriott pays it all except legal fees but does not accept blame), there are no winners and the members at best come out about even with a lot of pent up ill will between them, the BOD and MVCI.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> John,
> 
> Do Sue, Lucky, Modo, Love, Dean, and I get some special recognition when we push this thing over 2000 posts?
> 
> I mean like a letter or something? And not a letter recommending that we be committed to the home for the hopelessly bored.
> 
> Thanks



It's enough for me, really, that I'm holding my own in the Upping My Post Count game.  Besides, I'd hate to have to write an acceptance speech for my award.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> I think you get the prize for the poster with so much time on their hands.




Love,

I do have too much time on my hands. I am in Tacoma, WA and am taking care of my mother that has a heart condition, and is scheduled for open heart surgery on Monday. So I am kinda house-bound right now. And until the Mariners come on it 20 minutes or so, I do not have a lot to do. 

But thanks for the personal observation. I take that as sign of endearment. And thanks for pointing out my typo. 

BTW - I have not heard back from Allan yet. 

ps. And I think you share a common opinion on MVCI.

Thanks


----------



## Dean

ecwinch said:


> Love,
> 
> I do have too much time on my hands. I am in Tacoma, WA and am taking care of my mother that has a heart condition, and is scheduled for open heart surgery on Monday. So I am kinda house-bound right now. And until the Mariners come on it 20 minutes or so, I do not have a lot to do.
> 
> But thanks for the personal observation. I take that as sign of endearment. And thanks for pointing out my typo.
> 
> BTW - I have not heard back from Allan yet.
> 
> Thanks


Funny how no one comments on post counts or time spent for those they agree with but rather use it to attack a person rather than discussing the issues.


----------



## ecwinch

SueDonJ said:


> It's enough for me, really, that I'm holding my own in the Upping My Post Count game.  Besides, I'd hate to have to write an acceptance speech for my award.



I can understand how writing those words "I would like to thank MarkSue", might be a challenge.

I think I have increased the lead by almost 80 since the last check... you better get going on the pts thread.


----------



## london

*What more can be said*

With almost 2000 posts, and over 80,000 views, what more can be said.

Perhaps this thread has run its course, for many Tuggers.

Of course the owner's and BOD have lots to talk about in a never ending conversation.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> Lucky,
> 
> You seem very unable to support your position with much more than rhetoric. So your decision is probably appropriate. I think this is the third time I have asked for some detail, only to have you quit. I would think with the abundance of facts supporting your position, these would be easy requests.
> 
> In regard for my support for MVCI, I do not think I have hid the fact that I think they are a good company that is being defamed here. You do not share that opinion, and I respect that.
> 
> Thanks



I dont have to support my position to you ...that is the whole point. I choose not to because it is a complete and utter waste of time. You proved that by your ability to ignore the obvious when you couldnt see how the letter is a complete and  total joke. So why would I try to "support " anything where you are concerned. I learned many years ago that when one is atempting to show someone the fallacy of their thinking one has to be at minimum dealing with someone who is capable of comprehending it. Seemingly as I said before either you are not(which I doubt) or, you simply choose to believe that if Marriott says it is sunny then it must be even as you hear the rain and thunder. 
I simply wont waste valuable breath under those circumstances. I wonder though what you'll be saying in say a year or two when this is all over. Mind if I crow a bit then?


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> Love,
> 
> I do have too much time on my hands. I am in Tacoma, WA and am taking care of my mother that has a heart condition, and is scheduled for open heart surgery on Monday. So I am kinda house-bound right now. And until the Mariners come on it 20 minutes or so, I do not have a lot to do.
> 
> But thanks for the personal observation. I take that as sign of endearment. And thanks for pointing out my typo.
> 
> BTW - I have not heard back from Allan yet.
> 
> ps. And I think you share a common opinion on MVCI.
> 
> Thanks



Allow me here to wish your mother good luck and speedy recovery.
I went through the same last year with my dad.
There are obviously more important issues out there than this blog.
As a side line,chalk up another post from moi.
Keep the faith.


----------



## lovearuba

*good thoughts*



ecwinch said:


> Love,
> 
> I do have too much time on my hands. I am in Tacoma, WA and am taking care of my mother that has a heart condition, and is scheduled for open heart surgery on Monday. So I am kinda house-bound right now. And until the Mariners come on it 20 minutes or so, I do not have a lot to do.
> 
> But thanks for the personal observation. I take that as sign of endearment. And thanks for pointing out my typo.
> 
> BTW - I have not heard back from Allan yet.
> 
> ps. And I think you share a common opinion on MVCI.
> 
> Thanks


 
I am sorry to hear about your mom.  I lost mine and actually used some of the money she left me to purchase the timeshare. I told my husband that I wanted to use the money only for things that would bring us happiness.  I had tremendous difficulty letting her go so I truly know how precious moms can be and I sincerely hope things work out well for yours.  I am also confident that if you have reached out to Allan, he will connect.  Hes a wonderful person and will listen as long as the conversation is respectful.


----------



## marksue

Eric I may wear goggles as you say, but at least I am not wearing Marriott blinders, which if I put on is "Marriott is my idol " .  

I have stated my opinions and I do not care if you agree or not.  It really doesnt matter.  My concern is for my fellow owners and ensuring we have the opportunity to present our case to the rest of the owners, drive transparency and hold Marriott accountable.   

I do not need to convince you or anyone else on what is going on and why I believe thier are injustices at the OC.  Those of us that own know it first hand.  Do we have 100% support, no we dont, but you never have 100% in anything.  There are  1000+ owners that are signed up in support this issue

I learned a long time ago not to answer any of your questions.  All you ever do is attack my responses anyway so what is the point.  You do not care what I or any other member of the group has to say. No matter what anyone says all you do is attack attack attack and bleed your Marriott blood.

You expect Allan to get back to you right away.  It was suggested a while back for you to contact Allan, but you waited, yet you make a comment Allan didnt get back to me yet, after less than 1 day.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> Eric I may wear goggles as you say, but at least I am not wearing Marriott blinders, which if I put on is "Marriott is my idol " .
> 
> I have stated my opinions and I do not care if you agree or not.  It really doesnt matter.  My concern is for my fellow owners and ensuring we have the opportunity to present our case to the rest of the owners, drive transparency and hold Marriott accountable.
> 
> I do not need to convince you or anyone else on what is going on and why I believe thier are injustices at the OC.  Those of us that own know it first hand.  Do we have 100% support, no we dont, but you never have 100% in anything.  There are  1000+ owners that are signed up in support this issue
> 
> I learned a long time ago not to answer any of your questions.  All you ever do is attack my responses anyway so what is the point.  You do not care what I or any other member of the group has to say. No matter what anyone says all you do is attack attack attack and bleed your Marriott blood.
> 
> You expect Allan to get back to you right away.  It was suggested a while back for you to contact Allan, but you waited, yet you make a comment Allan didnt get back to me yet, after less than 1 day.



Mark,

 I have noticed a distinct lack of any factual rebuttal to the points I raise, so I understand how it is just easier to marginalize opinions that we do not like to hear by accusing the poster of "idol worship" or that they are non-owners. When the facts do not support a thesis it is generally just better to ignore them. It is a common technique used in such crusades. 

And, you obviously will have to convince one non-owner about the "why I believe thier are injustices at the OC" or this crusade will not proceed. Unless the judge is a AOC owner.

My nudge of Love, was just a reminder that I had not heard from Allan. He contacted me after that post, and I hope to speak with him soon. It was just a reminder, I made no statements that should be inferred as something else. 

And we have heard your claims of wide-spread support before, so grant me leave to take them with a grain of salt.

Thanks


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Allow me here to wish your mother good luck and speedy recovery.
> I went through the same last year with my dad.
> There are obviously more important issues out there than this blog.
> As a side line,chalk up another post from moi.
> Keep the faith.





lovearuba said:


> I am sorry to hear about your mom.  I lost mine and actually used some of the money she left me to purchase the timeshare. I told my husband that I wanted to use the money only for things that would bring us happiness.  I had tremendous difficulty letting her go so I truly know how precious moms can be and I sincerely hope things work out well for yours.  I am also confident that if you have reached out to Allan, he will connect.  Hes a wonderful person and will listen as long as the conversation is respectful.



Thanks for the kind words. I find that posting on boards like these just takes my mind off the issue, and that is why I post so frequently. Just trying to offer some insight. Sometimes I think we lose sight of the fact that we may have a difference of opinion, but I think we are all good people at heart.


----------



## thadius65

Wow.... After scanning 79 or so pages, I am sure glad I bought at the Surf Club!  Actually, this thread (and an owner on the beach in aruba this year) kept us from considering the Ocean Club.

Good luck!  I hope enough is learned that future issues at other sites can be avoided.  

Ted


----------



## modoaruba

thadius65 said:


> Wow.... After scanning 79 or so pages, I am sure glad I bought at the Surf Club!  Actually, this thread (and an owner on the beach in aruba this year) kept us from considering the Ocean Club.
> 
> Good luck!  I hope enough is learned that future issues at other sites can be avoided.
> 
> Ted



We bought into the AOC in 1998 and have been going there twice a year since. Never had a bad time. The accommodations and staff were always top notch for us.
Issues came up last year which I strongly feel are not unique to the AOC but rather exists at other timeshares. A board member here decided to "whisleblow" a foul thinking it to be in the best interest of the owners.
Basically there is a cry out for transparancy.
Other timeshares have not gotten as much attention possibly because no other board member challenged the status quo as was done here and the owners at the other timeshares are oblivious to what's going on behind the scenes.
Right or wrong, people will read into it as what they feel to be right for them.
The AOC is a place for vacation.It is not, I hope, a major investment.
Weighing out the hierchy of importance of the controversy will be different to everyone which will depend on many factors.
Even though the fees have risen,luckily my finances will not suffer.
We have used the weeks owned to their full benefit and probably ahead of the game or at worse at a break even.
Many owners,as stated before, either don't know of what is going on,don't feel the need to get involved because it's not important enough for them.And there are owners like myself that are concerned but not going to have a coronary over it.
The only reason I would not buy at this point would have nothing to do with the controversies.I like Marriott running the AOC but would like them to be more open and explain themselves to the issues.(Surf Club also Marriott-so the same thing can happen there).But my reason for not buying is today's cost as I analyzed in prior posts,but that implies to any timeshare.
So enjoy your timeshare.It's up to you what you make of it.

By the way The Yankees just won over Boston Life is good


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> ... By the way The Yankees just won over Boston Life is good



Man alive, that was painful to watch.  Something's definitely not right in that clubhouse, but if this year follows the club history we won't hear about it until probably the 2014 season.  Plus, there's practically a revolving sidewalk between Pawtucket and Boston with all the big boys dropping like flies.  Ugh, I really hate this point in the season.

But besides all that, today was a beautiful day with low humidity and low 80's temps.  Can't ask for more.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> Basically there is a cry out for transparancy.


No, it's mainly about the money.  Transparency would not have been an issue without the fees increases, SA and perception that this was Marriott trying to pass the cost of an issue they knew prior to sales was not acceptable.  The last part and how it was handled was the second half of the issue don't you think.  And the third component, the honesty and integrity of the BOD, management and Marriott.  At least this is my perception of the issues.


----------



## modoaruba

Dean said:


> No, it's mainly about the money.  Transparency would not have been an issue without the fees increases, SA and perception that this was Marriott trying to pass the cost of an issue they knew prior to sales was not acceptable.  The last part and how it was handled was the second half of the issue don't you think.  And the third component, the honesty and integrity of the BOD, management and Marriott.  At least this is my perception of the issues.



I was just trying to keep it simple without too many details in explaining that I do not think we are unique.That was the only point I was trying to make.
Just because we were exposed via this board does not mean other timeshares have nothing to hide.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> I was just trying to keep it simple without too many details in explaining that I do not think we are unique.That was the only point I was trying to make.
> Just because we were exposed via this board does not mean other timeshares have nothing to hide.



I do think you're unique in one fashion, Modo, in that it appears to me that your group is asking your BOD to perform in a certain way which is against the current standard applied to all MVCI resorts and which is not being contested by owners at any other MVCI resort.

That one way?  Your group is very concerned with the fact that the personal addresses (email and home/office) of your BOD members are no longer available to the owners; rather, the generic aocbod@vacationclub.com has been instituted.  This has been one of the points raised here to support this group's claim of "no transparency."

But take a look at all of the Carribean resorts - no personal information is listed at my-vacationclub.com for any BOD members.  Same thing for the first ten or so US resorts in that list ...  Now whether the recent change came about because MVCI was concerned about privacy legislation and it is coincidental to the issues at MAOC, or whether it can be attributed to the issues at MAOC that your group has raised, might be debatable.  But the fact is, a generic BOD email address has become the norm at MVCI resorts.

You owners are unique in protesting that change.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> I do think you're unique in one fashion, Modo, in that it appears to me that your group is asking your BOD to perform in a certain way which is against the current standard applied to all MVCI resorts and which is not being contested by owners at any other MVCI resort.
> 
> That one way?  Your group is very concerned with the fact that the personal addresses (email and home/office) of your BOD members are no longer available to the owners; rather, the generic aocbod@vacationclub.com has been instituted.  This has been one of the points raised here to support this group's claim of "no transparency."
> 
> But take a look at all of the Carribean resorts - no personal information is listed at my-vacationclub.com for any BOD members.  Same thing for the first ten or so US resorts in that list ...  Now whether the recent change came about because MVCI was concerned about privacy legislation and it is coincidental to the issues at MAOC, or whether it can be attributed to the issues at MAOC that your group has raised, might be debatable.  But the fact is, a generic BOD email address has become the norm at MVCI resorts.
> 
> You owners are unique in protesting that change.



You be unique and tell me something new.:zzz:


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> You be unique and tell me something new.:zzz:



You can either agree or disagree with what's written, right?  Or ignore it?

[Edit:]  It's been asked over and over again what the motive is for non-owners to post in this thread.  How about this for a motive?  Marksue claims that this "blog" was put here to provide information to MAOC owners so that they can choose for themselves whether or not they want to join in the efforts being pursued against Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD.  Right?  Well, how can those owners who stumble onto this "blog" make *an informed* decision to join or not if the opinions offered by non-owners that are contrary to those of the group are not acknowledged in any way?  (For example, the legitimate fact that MVCI no longer makes available at any of its resorts the personal addresses of BOD members has not been either refuted or agreed to by any MAOC owner here, despite the fact that it has been stated repeatedly.)  Or, how can it be *an informed* decision if it's totally disregarded or ignored that some of what's been related throughout this thread by some MAOC owners is not only questionable, but downright incorrect?  (For example, the legitimate fact is that the request by Marksue to the BOD for a special meeting was denied because the "petition" was in an incorrect form, and not, as was stated, that the BOD incorrectly denied him and the owners whose names were on the list their rights as stipulated in the bylaws.)

Do you folks want to inform your fellow MAOC owners of what's actually occurring with respect to the issues at your resort, or do you just want names so you can increase the number of owners on your list?  What's your motive?


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> I was just trying to keep it simple without too many details in explaining that I do not think we are unique.That was the only point I was trying to make.
> Just because we were exposed via this board does not mean other timeshares have nothing to hide.


I kept it very simple and to the point and boiled it down to the basics.  The transparency issue is really a smoke screen for the other issues I posted, IMO.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> You can either agree or disagree with what's written, right?  Or ignore it?
> 
> [Edit:]  It's been asked over and over again what the motive is for non-owners to post in this thread.  How about this for a motive?  Marksue claims that this "blog" was put here to provide information to MAOC owners so that they can choose for themselves whether or not they want to join in the efforts being pursued against Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD.  Right?  Well, how can those owners who stumble onto this "blog" make *an informed* decision to join or not if the opinions offered by non-owners that are contrary to those of the group are not acknowledged in any way?  (For example, the legitimate fact that MVCI no longer makes available at any of its resorts the personal addresses of BOD members has not been either refuted or agreed to by any MAOC owner here, despite the fact that it has been stated repeatedly.)  Or, how can it be *an informed* decision if it's totally disregarded or ignored that some of what's been related throughout this thread by some MAOC owners is not only questionable, but downright incorrect?  (For example, the legitimate fact is that the request by Marksue to the BOD for a special meeting was denied because the "petition" was in an incorrect form, and not, as was stated, that the BOD incorrectly denied him and the owners whose names were on the list their rights as stipulated in the bylaws.)
> 
> Do you folks want to inform your fellow MAOC owners of what's actually occurring with respect to the issues at your resort, or do you just want names so you can increase the number of owners on your list?  What's your motive?



I guess they just want to increase the list so they can sell them magazines.
Come on.You are beating a dead horse.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> I guess they just want to increase the list so they can sell them magazines.
> Come on.You are beating a dead horse.



Can't that be said about anything that's been posted here, because the situation is pretty much unchanged since Mark first posted in October?

(I notice you still haven't either agreed to or refuted what I wrote about the generic BOD addresses.)

It seems so simple to me - either the evidence, the facts, will support what this group's grievances are, or it won't.  In either case, the truth is more important than who is right or wrong.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Can't that be said about anything that's been posted here, because the situation is pretty much unchanged since Mark first posted in October?
> 
> (I notice you still haven't either agreed to or refuted what I wrote about the generic BOD addresses.)
> 
> It seems so simple to me - either the evidence, the facts, will support what this group's grievances are, or it won't.  In either case, the truth is more important than who is right or wrong.



It's quite clear at this point as to what sides all us posters are on.
I'm not going to influence anyone to change their point of view just like no one here can change mine.
I'm basically bored with reading my own redundant posts. 
"What a long strange trip it's been".

Gettin ready for game 2. Go yankees


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> It's quite clear at this point as to what sides all us posters are on.
> I'm not going to influence anyone to change their point of view just like no one here can change mine.
> I'm basically bored with reading my own redundant posts.
> "What a long strange trip it's been".
> 
> Gettin ready for game 2. Go yankees



But why has this been allowed to turn into "sides" based on who the posters are as opposed to what should be most important, what the truth is?

I'm heading out to do some food shopping - we can't take watching another mess like the one my team made last night.  We'll keep the radio on in the car, though, just in case we have to rush home to watch my team turn the tables and embarrass yours.


----------



## ecwinch

So why we wait for news to break on this issue, what I fail to understand is why people are so willing to believe this about MVCI?

I mean we are not talking about some fly by night timeshare developer. It is a respected name.

What possibly could be their motivation for behaving in the manner that is being attributed to them? 

I mean this issue has been escalated to the highest levels of the organization. So the inference is that all of senior management must be in on the conspiracy to cover up the defective building, and to exercise control over the board. And then you have the board, what possibly do attribute their actions to? What motive could they possibly have to behave in the manner that allegations suggest? They are owners just like all of us. 

It is the lack of credible proof or rationale explanation on those two issues that boggles my mind. Hopefully when I speak to Allan (we spoke briefly today - but had a bad cell connection), some of this will become clearer. Because I just do not get it from the information that has been presented here. I have 1 + 1, and some else telling me it adds up to 7.


----------



## lovearuba

*enron and worldcom*



ecwinch said:


> So why we wait for news to break on this issue, what I fail to understand is why people are so willing to believe this about MVCI?
> 
> I mean we are not talking about some fly by night timeshare developer. It is a respected name.
> 
> What possibly could be their motivation for behaving in the manner that is being attributed to them?
> 
> I mean this issue has been escalated to the highest levels of the organization. So the inference is that all of senior management must be in on the conspiracy to cover up the defective building, and to exercise control over the board. And then you have the board, what possibly do attribute their actions to? What motive could they possibly have to behave in the manner that allegations suggest? They are owners just like all of us.
> 
> It is the lack of credible proof or rationale explanation on those two issues that boggles my mind. Hopefully when I speak to Allan (we spoke briefly today - but had a bad cell connection), some of this will become clearer. Because I just do not get it from the information that has been presented here. I have 1 + 1, and some else telling me it adds up to 7.


 
I am a bit more of a skeptic than you.  I'm an auditor, there are lots of reasons why large companies do what they do.  It generally gets to the almighty dollar.  Glad you connected with Allan, hope you finish the conversation.  For me this cause started because of the money, now it really is getting owner representation to get transparency on the board.


----------



## Dean

SueDonJ said:


> But why has this been allowed to turn into "sides" based on who the posters are as opposed to what should be most important, what the truth is?


Susan, this is a lot like talking about one's college football team.  You've got those that can really ONLY see one side and those that are looking at both sides and are more objective.  I don't recall any poster that could be construed as only pro Marriott and against the group.  However many seem to subscribe to the philosophy, if you're not with them you're against them.



> Hopefully when I speak to Allan (we spoke briefly today - but had a bad cell connection), some of this will become clearer. Because I just do not get it from the information that has been presented here. I have 1 + 1, and some else telling me it adds up to 7.


Doubtful unless Allan can produce object information that you can easily verify.  Otherwise it just comes down to how convincing he is on the phone.  That's not to suggest he's not honest, only that it brings us back to the original issue of motive and interpretation as we've discussed all along.  That's one of the reasons I haven't contacted him because I'd want him to back up statements with independent witnesses, documents, etc.  We couldn't even get the by-laws to evaluate certain issues.  In addition, I realize that convincing a single person he doesn't know isn't really worth that amount of effort even if he could plus he almost certainly couldn't due to the actions involved.  That's especially true since I'm convinced the actions are far more likely to hurt the members there than help them even if this is all completely true.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> So why we wait for news to break on this issue, what I fail to understand is why people are so willing to believe this about MVCI?
> 
> I mean we are not talking about some fly by night timeshare developer. It is a respected name.
> 
> What possibly could be their motivation for behaving in the manner that is being attributed to them?
> 
> I mean this issue has been escalated to the highest levels of the organization. So the inference is that all of senior management must be in on the conspiracy to cover up the defective building, and to exercise control over the board. And then you have the board, what possibly do attribute their actions to? What motive could they possibly have to behave in the manner that allegations suggest? They are owners just like all of us.
> 
> It is the lack of credible proof or rationale explanation on those two issues that boggles my mind. Hopefully when I speak to Allan (we spoke briefly today - but had a bad cell connection), some of this will become clearer. Because I just do not get it from the information that has been presented here. I have 1 + 1, and some else telling me it adds up to 7.



Examples: AIG, ENRON,Madoff,Fannie May,Freddie Mac,etc.

Credible proof was presented in the Madoff situation but nobody listened until too late.(Just an example).Not to say the same thing is happening here.

Big business=deep pockets=insulation

No incinuation meant here.

This has been long and drawn out as was last night's game.
15 innings no less.Sounds familiar?
At the end the Yankees won.I say it's a sign!


----------



## SueDonJ

Hey Modo, nice win for your team last night!  Those are the kinds of games that you can't begrudge either team the win, and you feel bad for both starting pitchers because their sterling work isn't reflected in their starts.  Man, what a gem!

Except, WHY OH WHY OH WHY <much wailing and gnashing of teeth> did it have to be AROD?!


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Hey Modo, nice win for your team last night!  Those are the kinds of games that you can't begrudge either team the win, and you feel bad for both starting pitchers because their sterling work isn't reflected in their starts.  Man, what a gem!
> 
> Except, WHY OH WHY OH WHY <much wailing and gnashing of teeth> did it have to be AROD?!



I wonder how Damon would have performed ir he was not told to bunt especially against a rookie pitcher.
The look on his face said it all.


----------



## marksue

SueDonJ said:


> (For example, the legitimate fact that MVCI no longer makes available at any of its resorts the personal addresses of BOD members has not been either refuted or agreed to by any MAOC owner here, despite the fact that it has been stated repeatedly.)  Or, how can it be *an informed* decision if it's totally disregarded or ignored that some of what's been related throughout this thread by some MAOC owners is not only questionable, but downright incorrect?  (For example, the legitimate fact is that the request by Marksue to the BOD for a special meeting was denied because the "petition" was in an incorrect form, and not, as was stated, that the BOD incorrectly denied him and the owners whose names were on the list their rights as stipulated in the bylaws.)



Once again you have no idea what you are talking about.  I am not going to repeat all the steps that were taken to ensure we did what was necessary to call a special meeting. You of course continue to ignore that and take what I say as not true.  Of course you are clueless and continue to show it.  Why should anyone believe what you have to say. You have yet failed to provide any facts to contradict what I have stated.  

What gives MVCI the right to take away owners rights to contact thier board directly?  We have always had the right and now MVCI, takes it away. They are the mgmt company and we are the owners. We pay them. Let the owners agree to remove the info.


----------



## timeos2

*It is transparancy its possible harrassment*



marksue said:


> What gives MVCI the right to take away owners rights to contact thier board directly?  We have always had the right and now MVCI, takes it away. They are the mgmt company and we are the owners. We pay them. Let the owners agree to remove the info.



"They" have not taken away your right to contact the Board. They have established a mailbox to do just that. For all we know it may have been at the request of the Board. There is nothing to prevent any or all Board members handing out their email / phone/ postal addresses if they so wish but I can sure understand why they wouldn't as it can lead to unwanted direct contact or SPAM or solicitation that plagues most of us even if we caefully shield our email/phone / post addresses.  At our resorts we post an individual email address for the Board as well as the individual Board members BUT they are not visible. They are hidden links that will allow anyone that wishes to send a message but never see the email address it actually goes to. We DO NOT publish any mailing addresses or phone numbers except those of the resort for contact again to protect members privacy.  To post email or phone or mailing address(es) is simply asking for trouble and I'd always be against it as a Board member (or owner) as long as a reasonable method of contact is provided. It sounds like that has been done. So what's the issue?


----------



## marksue

timeos2 said:


> " At our resorts we post an individual email address for the Board as well as the individual Board members BUT they are not visible. They are hidden links that will allow anyone that wishes to send a message but never see the email address it actually goes to. We DO NOT publish any mailing addresses or phone numbers except those of the resort for contact again to protect members privacy.  To post email or phone or mailing address(es) is simply asking for trouble and I'd always be against it as a Board member (or owner) as long as a reasonable method of contact is provided. It sounds like that has been done. So what's the issue?




I would not have a problem with that, but all contact at the OC goes to the GM of the OC who works for Marriott and he answers all the questions.  We dont hear fromt he board we hear from Corey.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> Once again you have no idea what you are talking about.  I am not going to repeat all the steps that were taken to ensure we did what was necessary to call a special meeting. You of course continue to ignore that and take what I say as not true.  Of course you are clueless and continue to show it.  Why should anyone believe what you have to say. You have yet failed to provide any facts to contradict what I have stated.
> 
> What gives MVCI the right to take away owners rights to contact thier board directly?  We have always had the right and now MVCI, takes it away. They are the mgmt company and we are the owners. We pay them. Let the owners agree to remove the info.



Mark, 

I do not see any reason for a deliberate personal attack on Sue. We can debate the points here, but calling someone "clueless" is not called for.

And MVCI only takes away what the AOC BoD allows them to. The BoD has accepted the policy of having communication flow through MVCI. I have pointed out several legal reasons that for such a policy, all of which you ignore, as you do with all facts that do not supported your biased thesis.

Thanks


----------



## ecwinch

*My Call with Allan*

Just spent about 2 hrs on the phone with Allan. I am going to continue to communicate with him. I found Allan to be a very reasonable fellow, but nothing was said that significantly changes my mind. He did clear up some mis-information regarding some the facts that Mark has provided.

Allan was not forced off the board. The by-laws of the AOC have had term limits for a number of years, and Allan's departure was due to those term limits. 

Allan does believe, that the MVCI engineered his removal as President of the AOC. I do not disagree with his opinion. For as he outlined in his letter that was posted on this board, he was actively pursuing his own agenda, and had likely become a pain in the a**. 

I found Allan to be a very reasonable person to talk to. I do not think he fully endorses all of Mark's posts on this board. In fact, after talking to him, I seriously doubt that he would approve of the extreme negative bias under which Mark provides analysis of events.

I did make the point to Allan that his affiliation with Mark has lent this cause far more creditability than it would have without him. And the extent that Mark has promoted that alliance. He indicated that he would have a conversation with Mark in that regard. 

I came away with the feeling that he and Mark are aligned in their goal, but not in method. I specifically asked Allan to come to this board and see what Mark is posting, but he declined. I intend to provide Allan with a highlight reel to make that point clearly.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> I would not have a problem with that, but all contact at the OC goes to the GM of the OC who works for Marriott and he answers all the questions.  We dont hear fromt he board we hear from Corey.



Why is that a problem? You are getting a response. If you want to communicate expressly with the Board, mark your communication "FOR BOARD EYES ONLY" or something to that affect. Make it clear that you want a response from the board.

But do not complain if the board delegates the task of responding to Corey. 

Nor is the fact that Corey replies without the board seeing the question the smoking gun you want to make it to be. It is only reasonable to see that one of his jobs is to handle the day-to-day. If the question can be handled by him, he should do so. If you do not like his answer, then escalate it to the Board for action.

Again, see my previous post on how communication with your state representative works. How is this any different?  It is simply an effective use of resources that in no way impedes your ability to communicate with your board.

To me this is an example of how you want to twist the most benign action as further proof for your crusade.


----------



## lovearuba

*lets be nice to each other*

Hey, I have an idea.  Why dont we try a full day of being nice to each other.  Of course that will likely result in a day with no new posts but what do you say?  Can you give it a try?


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Hey, I have an idea.  Why dont we try a full day of being nice to each other.  Of course that will likely result in a day with no new posts but what do you say?  Can you give it a try?



Now, what fun would that be? 

I would rather people just not resort to pointless name calling. I am not saying we all have to like each other, but there is no need to make it personal.


----------



## Eric

I think at this point it's about saving face. Mark has accomplished nothing at this point and down the road will have to give up. His closing statement will be whinning about how evil Marriott is.


----------



## timeos2

*You know where it went and to whom*



ecwinch said:


> Why is that a problem? You are getting a response. If you want to communicate expressly with the Board, mark your communication "FOR BOARD EYES ONLY" or something to that affect. Make it clear that you want a response from the board.



When you think about it a centralized mailbox for the Board is actually a better way to be sure they see the correspondence. If you are trying to reach each member individually you may or may not get the address right, they may or may not know what other members have seen. If the whole Board gets the messages from the general Board mailbox they are all acting on the same information and can decide to reply through the designated contact (if there is one) and/or with an individual reply if they are so inclined.  It isn't hiding or restricting access by any means.


----------



## Dean

timeos2 said:


> When you think about it a centralized mailbox for the Board is actually a better way to be sure they see the correspondence. If you are trying to reach each member individually you may or may not get the address right, they may or may not know what other members have seen. If the whole Board gets the messages from the general Board mailbox they are all acting on the same information and can decide to reply through the designated contact (if there is one) and/or with an individual reply if they are so inclined.  It isn't hiding or restricting access by any means.


This is the way many resorts handle things, if they even give you access at all.  I think the issue is that some perceive this move was to give less access related to the issues at hand.  It may be true, I don't know, even if it is it's the question is whether it was done punitively or due to harassment.  What I've seen in this thread would suggest the latter IF there's a relationship.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> Just spent about 2 hrs on the phone with Allan. I am going to continue to communicate with him. I found Allan to be a very reasonable fellow, but nothing was said that significantly changes my mind. He did clear up some mis-information regarding some the facts that Mark has provided.
> 
> Allan was not forced off the board. The by-laws of the AOC have had term limits for a number of years, and Allan's departure was due to those term limits.
> 
> Allan does believe, that the MVCI engineered his removal as President of the AOC. I do not disagree with his opinion. For as he outlined in his letter that was posted on this board, he was actively pursuing his own agenda, and had likely become a pain in the a**.
> 
> I found Allan to be a very reasonable person to talk to. I do not think he fully endorses all of Mark's posts on this board. In fact, after talking to him, I seriously doubt that he would approve of the extreme negative bias under which Mark provides analysis of events.
> 
> I did make the point to Allan that his affiliation with Mark has lent this cause far more creditability than it would have without him. And the extent that Mark has promoted that alliance. He indicated that he would have a conversation with Mark in that regard.
> 
> I came away with the feeling that he and Mark are aligned in their goal, but not in method. I specifically asked Allan to come to this board and see what Mark is posting, but he declined. I intend to provide Allan with a highlight reel to make that point clearly.



I am glad you spoke with Allan.At least you see some substance presented from a reasonable man.
Critics on this board who have never spoke to him point out protocol which I cannot deny them.
At least you have an opportunity to hear another point of view.
This is exactly where I stand,betwixt. Where do you go from here?

I gave it some thought and realized that if we live in a democracy,there is an independent investigative group that would search out the accusations and see if there was substance to them.
Obviously in our situation the crafting of protocol does not define such an avenue.
It's a game of chess as to how does the group present it's case to the owners who do not know what's going on and to do so by following the current regulations and how does Marriott prevent that from happening by also following the current regulations.


----------



## modoaruba

lovearuba said:


> Hey, I have an idea.  Why dont we try a full day of being nice to each other.  Of course that will likely result in a day with no new posts but what do you say?  Can you give it a try?



Was I just not nice?
Yankees won again. Of course I am nice.


----------



## marksue

Eric said:


> I think at this point it's about saving face. Mark has accomplished nothing at this point and down the road will have to give up. His closing statement will be whinning about how evil Marriott is.



More has been accomplished by this effort than you have probably accomplished in your life.


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> Once again you have no idea what you are talking about.  I am not going to repeat all the steps that were taken to ensure we did what was necessary to call a special meeting. You of course continue to ignore that and take what I say as not true.  Of course you are clueless and continue to show it.  Why should anyone believe what you have to say. You have yet failed to provide any facts to contradict what I have stated.



None of us can be said to be actually "clueless" about the fact that your submission to request a special meeting was denied because it was in an incorrect form, and not because your rights as stipulated in the bylaws were infringed upon.  That conclusion was formed by me and several other people based on the response letter that was quoted in your post here.  It's not opinion, it's fact.  



marksue said:


> What gives MVCI the right to take away owners rights to contact thier board directly?  We have always had the right and now MVCI, takes it away. They are the mgmt company and we are the owners. We pay them. Let the owners agree to remove the info.



You have a right and means to contact your BOD.  Unfortunately, the charges that have been alleged and actions that have been taken by your group against Marriott/MVCI/your BOD have resulted in all of your questions related to those allegations being directed to one spokesperson.  That's SOP whenever a company is forced into an adversarial role, and should have been expected.


----------



## modoaruba

lovearuba said:


> Hey, I have an idea.  Why dont we try a full day of being nice to each other.  Of course that will likely result in a day with no new posts but what do you say?  Can you give it a try?



I got to quote you again,sorry it didn't happen. Got some serious issues out there.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> Was I just not nice?
> Yankees won again. Of course I am nice.



Man oh man, things are not looking good for the RedSox at all.  They need to turn things around right quick if they're going to have any chance at all.   

24 straight innings with no runs, ugh.  Of course, we expected that the Yankees weren't going to stand for the 0-8 record with the Sox before this series.  But again, man oh man - this is tough to take!


----------



## jimf41

modoaruba said:


> I gave it some thought and realized that if we live in a democracy,there is an independent investigative group that would search out the accusations and see if there was substance to them.



I think this only my second post on this thread. Way back on page 21 or so I suggested that maybe it should be discontinued. I have kept up with it though as I own a Caribbean resort although not in Aruba. I think Modo's comment above hits a key point. It seems as though most folks here think their resorts are or should be managed in a democracy much like the USA is run. Well that would be a disaster both for the USA and MVCI. The USA is a republic not a democracy. Democracy's are essentially mob rule. We govern by the rule of law not the wishes of the majority. The majority can change the law but it can't violate it.

It's seems MarkSue's advocates started out trying to accomplish their goal in a democratic way and then ran into MVCI that said no we follow the rules. That attitude on MVCI's part seemed to infuriate some folks. It appears that Marksue is now taking a different tact and following the rules in order to effect change. Much better way to go IMO. I share the opinion of some here that he doesn't stand much of a chance in the long run but that does not mean that his cause is not just or that he won't eventually prevail.

I hope this eventually has a happy ending for all of the owners at the Ocean Club.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> More has been accomplished by this effort than you have probably accomplished in your life.



Mark, since you know almost nothing about me, how are you qualified to enter into unfounded speculation like that? You do not know my professional background, record of community service, or my military record. You know almost nothing about what I have accomplished in life. Did you know I worked as a bomb disposal technician for four years, with over 82 incident response calls? That I worked US Secret Service protection details for the Pope, presidential candidates, and US Presidents/Vice-Presidents.

That I created a company that produces the #1 software product in it's market, and created jobs for 25+ people.

And just on TUG, you are ignoring my activity in other threads, supporting the efforts of owners that are combating developers who actually are abusing the rights of owners. See how many posts I have made in the Southcape, Sandcastle, and Pollard Brook threads, in an effort to help those owners sort through all the legal documents. For those concerned owner groups recognize that non-owners can actually help their efforts, rather than having their opinions diminished.

This just goes to how you will use speculation to diminish the opinion of others. You are riding Allan's coat-tails, and the only thing you have accomplished is the needless expense of your HOA defending themselves from your agenda. At least Allan conducted himself with honor and dignity. You seem to have adopted a "the ends justify the means" approach to this crusade.


----------



## ecwinch

timeos2 said:


> When you think about it a centralized mailbox for the Board is actually a better way to be sure they see the correspondence. If you are trying to reach each member individually you may or may not get the address right, they may or may not know what other members have seen. If the whole Board gets the messages from the general Board mailbox they are all acting on the same information and can decide to reply through the designated contact (if there is one) and/or with an individual reply if they are so inclined.  It isn't hiding or restricting access by any means.



You need to borrow the "special" goggles from Mark. Then you will see it differently.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> I am glad you spoke with Allan.At least you see some substance presented from a reasonable man.
> Critics on this board who have never spoke to him point out protocol which I cannot deny them.
> At least you have an opportunity to hear another point of view.
> This is exactly where I stand,betwixt. Where do you go from here?



I think that is a great question. I think Mark has done sufficient damage that it is going to be difficult for any BoD to be effective at the Ocean Club. Even if Mark was to stand-down today, so much rhetoric and innuedo has been created, that it will color the operation of the board for years to come. 

The only thing I can suggest is that a group of moderate owners form, and attempt to reach a compromise between the two groups. I think there are numerous non-judicial methods that can be used to resolve the differences and conduct an independent evaluation of the grievances. But it is difficult to have that dialog or to pursue non-judicial means, when you have a predisposition for legal action. And when you use slander and character assassination as your principle weapon. 

As part of my compilation for Allan, I have been reviewing the old posts in this thread. Looking back, you can see that Mark intended for this to end up in court all along. Specifically look at just his posts in the month of Oct/Nov, and see how frequently he mentions "class-action". 

As the saying goes "anger is a good servant, but a poor master". I think Mark emotions needlessly color this crusade, and prompt rash action. The problem calls for a more moderate approach.

But I am a non-owner, so my opinion is meaningless.


----------



## marksue

ecwinch said:


> Mark, since you know almost nothing about me, how are you qualified to enter into unfounded speculation like that? You do not know my professional background, record of community service, or my military record. You know almost nothing about what I have accomplished in life. Did you know I worked as a bomb disposal technician for four years, with over 82 incident response calls? That I worked US Secret Service protection details for the Pope, presidential candidates, and US Presidents/Vice-Presidents.
> 
> That I created a company that produces the #1 software product in it's market, and created jobs for 25+ people.
> 
> And just on TUG, you are ignoring my activity in other threads, supporting the efforts of owners that are combating developers who actually are abusing the rights of owners. See how many posts I have made in the Southcape, Sandcastle, and Pollard Brook threads, in an effort to help those owners sort through all the legal documents. For those concerned owner groups recognize that non-owners can actually help their efforts, rather than having their opinions diminished.
> 
> This just goes to how you will use speculation to diminish the opinion of others. You are riding Allan's coat-tails, and the only thing you have accomplished is the needless expense of your HOA defending themselves from your agenda. At least Allan conducted himself with honor and dignity. You seem to have adopted a "the ends justify the means" approach to this crusade.



My comment was not about you, it was in response to the other Eric's comments.  You should have read the Quote on top .

And now you are making inuendo's that I am riding Allan's coat-tails.  You and everyone else can attack me all you want I believe in what I started which was long before I met Allan.  We as owners have heard more than we would ahve without this effort.   

For the longest time I tired to do this with out legal, but MVCI and the BOD decided that was the route they wanted to take.  They were the first to respond with a lawyer.


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> More has been accomplished by this effort than you have probably accomplished in your life.


That's a pretty strong statement given that from what I can see, nothing good has been accomplished as of yet in a positive way and as pointed out, a lot of ill will has been created that will likely be impossible to get past for many including Marriott, the BOD and a core set of members.  My prediction was that Marriott would not be proven to have been dishonest, the roughly 50% offer for Marriott to pay toward the roof repair was fair and about the max that was going to happen if you account for the other costs and there was no amount of "transparency" that was going to rebuild the relationship.  I have no doubt that Marriott's on paper amount is likely to go up but I have gone on record that even if they pay the full amount of the SA but are not proven in the wrong, that this effort is a failure and when you consider the other costs involved, is no better than where you started.  I stand by that interpretation but I have no doubt that if that is the outcome, some will some here and claim victory.  I also think that the group has potential liability for Marriott's and the resorts legal expenses.  If I were a member, felt these actions cost me money and was aware of certain people that had promoted it, I'd have no problem going after them personally.  

It's unfortunate you've gone from discussing the issues to personal attacks just because some do not take your interpretation as the gospel.  I do realize Eric has also made some strong statements so if your personal attacks had only been to him, I likely would have given you some leeway.  You may indeed be correct at every turn, it's just that no real proof has been offered to date to this group.  Hopefully you can prove your case in court and get MVCI and not the resort to pay all expenses for both groups so it's only the shareholders at risk and not the members.


----------



## marksue

Dean,

I don't disagree with you about the attacks.  I have tried to ignore most of the comments regarding me but a few I felt I needed to respond to.  It is not my natue to do that.  I will try to not attack moving forward, but if I am personally attacked then I will attack back.  

I am trying to stay with the issues here.


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> Dean,
> 
> I don't disagree with you about the attacks.  I have tried to ignore most of the comments regarding me but a few I felt I needed to respond to.  It is not my natue to do that.  I will try to not attack moving forward, but if I am personally attacked then I will attack back.
> 
> I am trying to stay with the issues here.


Great, I'm glad you took my comments in a positive way and commend you for the post and effort.  However, I think you have taken comments about your actions as comments about you personally.  While closely related in your mind, they are somewhat separate to us or at least to me.  IMO, comments about your actions are fair game on a thread such as this, you've put yourself in that situation.  I, for one, am wishing you all the best though my main support has to be for the owners at your resort and Marriott owners in general and unfortunately, I don't personally see your efforts as helpful for either group in the long run unless you can indeed produce a smoking gun that does far beyond just the roof and SA issue.


----------



## Eric

Personal attacks are not allowed on TUG. I must have hit a chord. My opinion was on your accomplishments or lack of them, in this venture, not you personally. As far as what you have accomplished here, lets guess, it's a moral victory ? LOL, please. I will state it again. As of today, you have ZERO to show for all your efforts. I don't expect that to change anytime soon. 





marksue said:


> More has been accomplished by this effort than you have probably accomplished in your life.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> My comment was not about you, it was in response to the other Eric's comments.  You should have read the Quote on top .
> 
> And now you are making inuendo's that I am riding Allan's coat-tails.  You and everyone else can attack me all you want I believe in what I started which was long before I met Allan.  We as owners have heard more than we would ahve without this effort.
> 
> For the longest time I tired to do this with out legal, but MVCI and the BOD decided that was the route they wanted to take.  They were the first to respond with a lawyer.



Yes, I saw my name and thought you were referring to me. And while you did not make that statement to me directly, I think my point is valid. You know no more about this Eric than you do the other.

I am not making innuendo, I am stating a well-formed opinion based on my conversation with Allan. You are absolutely correct that Allan was not associated with you until well after this crusade was launched. I would only ask the objective readers to look at how you recast your communications with him in your early posts.

And if, in your first communication with MVCI, you made any indication that legal means were going to be used, then YOU immediately slammed the door on non-judicial resolution. As soon as you raised that possibility, it almost required them to communicate with you through legal counsel. It is only common-sense to do so when threatened with legal action.

So, because I want to remain objective and open-minded, I will offer you the opportunity to forward your communication with the board on this matter, and their responses. I have made similar requests in the past, so I will understand the response of "he does not have to show you anything, you do not own there".  And this should not be a legal problem, as this is your communication to them, and is correspondence they already would have.

Your call. If you want this question to be resolved, then someone outside your circle needs to vet your allegations.


----------



## ecwinch

Eric said:


> Personal attacks are not allowed on TUG. I must have hit a chord. My opinion was on your accomplishments or lack of them, in this venture, not you personally. As far as what you have accomplished here, lets guess, it's a moral victory ? LOL, please. I will state it again. As of today, you have ZERO to show for all your efforts. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.



Eric, your original observation was not a personal attack. He made no observation about his intelligence or the quality of his character. Mark's sphere of influence is crumbling, and he is lashing out. His response to Dean is just an attempt to rationalize his inappropriate behavior.


----------



## Dean

ecwinch said:


> His response to Dean is just an attempt to rationalize his inappropriate behavior.


Maybe, I'd like to think it was a sincere attempt to get back to the issues.  I personally have to give him the benefit of the doubt it that regard.


----------



## Luckybee

As an owner at MOC I for one dont think that Mark needs to show anyone here anything nor imho should he. The owners are who count here ! What he chooses to do is up to him. I have a hard time understanding what purpose is served by providing anyone here with the bylaws, documents , copies of correspondence, reports or any other material that may later be evidence so that it can continually be ripped apart by those who have no interest in the property. Why not simply continue with the steps already in play and see what the results are?


----------



## Zac495

2000!


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> As an owner at MOC I for one dont think that Mark needs to show anyone here anything nor imho should he. The owners are who count here ! What he chooses to do is up to him. I have a hard time understanding what purpose is served by providing anyone here with the bylaws, documents , copies of correspondence, reports or any other *material that may later be evidence * so that it can continually be ripped apart by those who have no interest in the property. Why not simply continue with the steps already in play and see what the results are?



In my reply I already predicted what the response would be. Thanks for proving my point. And I thought you were knowledgeable about the law. 

The only purpose that is served is in proving the statements that have been made.  Now if the proof does not exist or would not withstand objective review, it just validates the statements made that this will lead to nowhere. For, in the absence of proof, the allegations will always be just that - "allegations".

But I think it speaks volumes about the real purpose of this crusade. And it makes me wonder how many of the crusaders have seen the proof in question, for I find it funny all the excuses that are offered when proof is requested. You would think it would be a simple thing. Particularly from a group that is asking for transparency and accountability.


----------



## lovearuba

*Ditto*



Luckybee said:


> As an owner at MOC I for one dont think that Mark needs to show anyone here anything nor imho should he. The owners are who count here ! What he chooses to do is up to him. I have a hard time understanding what purpose is served by providing anyone here with the bylaws, documents , copies of correspondence, reports or any other material that may later be evidence so that it can continually be ripped apart by those who have no interest in the property. Why not simply continue with the steps already in play and see what the results are?


 
Anything worth fighting for is usually takes opposition first.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Anything worth fighting for is usually takes opposition first.



I do not disagree. But if you start out talking about a lawsuit, then I think it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. So lets not be disingenuous and suggest that non-judicial methods have been given a real chance.


----------



## modoaruba

*stalemate or bust?*

what lies in the balance?
On one side,assuming the group is correct,negative advertisement of your own property,defame Marriott,create ill feelings between Marriott,staff and owners,possibly cost owners more money,have the satisfaction of being able to say they were right.Will those owners feel comfortable with their vacation.

On the other side, if the group is proven wrong,nothng changes from the above.

Think about it.

Maybe we ought to look at cutting our losses short and trying to have a private meeting of both sides. We have representatives of both sides meet.Maybe someone has a better idea. I'm just throwing it out there.

I feel that wether  the group "wins" or "looses",it can't win.

Call it a stalemate or go bust.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> I do not disagree. But if you start out talking about a lawsuit, then I think it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. So lets not be disingenuous and suggest that non-judicial methods have been given a real chance.




I dont think either LoveAruba or I "suggested" anything . I know all I "suggested" was that it was my fervent hope that Mark nor anyone else on the "committee" of concerned owners chose to not share the materials etc on this board since imho it would serve no purpose. I would prefer as I indicated to see how the whole thing pans out elsewhere.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> I dont think either LoveAruba or I "suggested" anything . I know all I "suggested" was that it was my fervent hope that Mark nor anyone else on the "committee" of concerned owners chose to not share the materials etc on this board since imho it would serve no purpose. I would prefer as I indicated to see how the whole thing pans out elsewhere.



But what do you stand to lose by sharing the information? I think I am noticing a pattern here. This is like having a discussion with a five-year old child that refuses to show you what he has behind his back. 

Love asked that I contact Allan, which I did. But I ask for something relatively small and easy to do, and this is the response? 

 And I am asking that it be posted on the board as you indicate. Mark has my e-mail, send me the proof. What are you afraid of?  Why are so opposed to this occurring?

Again, it seems like in your mind, that Transparency and Accountability are one way streets.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> But what do you stand to lose by sharing the information? I think I am noticing a pattern here. This is like having a discussion with a five-year old child that refuses to show you what he has behind his back.
> 
> Love asked that I contact Allan, which I did. But I ask for something relatively small and easy to do, and this is the response?
> 
> And I am asking that it be posted on the board as you indicate. Mark has my e-mail, send me the proof. What are you afraid of?  Why are so opposed to this occurring?
> 
> Again, it seems like in your mind, that Transparency and Accountability are one way streets.



Perhaps I have misunderstood. Maybe you are an owner at MOC. Or perhaps you misunderstood me. As I said (now for about the 10th time). I have yet to see any reason why any info should be shared on this board since it serves no purpose other than to provide fodder for amusement. I dont believe that Mark would ever be given a fair shake on this board no matter what he did(expect perhaps if he admitted he was wrong and Marriott is wonderful).  

Transparency and Accountability have nothing to do with this message board. I dont recall anyone from the concerned owners group, or anyone else for that matter asking that the tug mesage boards have transparency and accountability...lol. 
I repeat once again I would prefer Mark not send you or any other non owner anything. It is just my opinion, and I have heard all the supposed "reasons" why non owners have posted but it simply doesnt ring true to me. Call me paranoid, I quite frankly dont care. I have absolutely no faith in anyone "assisting" who has made it abundantly clear from the very beginning where they stand. As I said before, Mark will do as he chooses but I see absolutely nothing to be gained by it. I would prefer that things follow their course.

I agree that it is like a discussion with a 5 year old....one who wishes to play but was never in the game to begin with !


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> I repeat once again I would prefer Mark not send you or any other non owner anything.



The purpose is serves is to silent the critics. You complain on why we criticize, but you fail to take a real simple step to answer us. Just like you accuse the AOC board of.

So do not complain when we continue to post this forum. Mark chose to have this discussion in a public forum in order to solicit the widest possible forum to air his complaints and to bring pressure on Marriott. Most other concerned owner groups form and then move to a private venue to communicate with each other. Yet this group has continued to post to TUG. One has to wonder what why that is, if not to bring public attention and force MVCI to address their issues and seek resolution to avoid bad "press". So if your want to do that, then you need address the public concerns that are voiced by non-owners.

Again, I have not asked that Mark post any of his information on this forum. I have asked that he send his communication with the Board to me by e-mail. You keep suggesting that I want it posted to the forum.

I am starting to think that if you are a lawyer, then your license to practice law might have come from a box of Fruit Loops. Maybe a Captain Crunch. But perhaps that is why you phrased your comment on the law the way you did.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> The purpose is serves is to silent the critics. You complain on why we criticize, but you fail to take a real simple step to answer us. Just like you accuse the AOC board of.
> 
> So do not complain when we continue to post this forum. Mark chose to have this discussion in a public forum in order to solicit the widest possible forum to air his complaints and to bring pressure on Marriott. Most other concerned owner groups form and then move to a private venue to communicate with each other. Yet this group has continued to post to TUG. One has to wonder what why that is, if not to bring public attention and force MVCI to address their issues and seek resolution to avoid bad "press". So if your want to do that, then you need address the public concerns that are voiced by non-owners.
> 
> Again, I have not asked that Mark post any of his information on this forum. I have asked that he send his communication with the Board to me by e-mail. You keep suggesting that I want it posted to the forum.
> 
> I am starting to think that if you are a lawyer, then your license to practice law might have come from a box of Fruit Loops. Maybe a Captain Crunch. But perhaps that is why you phrased your comment on the law the way you did.



I personally would be happier if there was a private venue for this for owners at the Ocean Club only. 
The only reason I have continued to post is because I cannot stand by and abide by the downright nasty , sarcastic, and insulting comments made by you and a couple of others towards Mark and his groups efforts when they have taken the action they have taken in order to help the rest of the owners. Agree or disagree with the action imho he has been subjected to a ridiculous amount of abuse from you and your cronies. It has offended me greatly and I dont even know the man.
If you wish to trade credentials feel free to contact me through private messages and I'll be happy to show you mine if you show me yours. You have completely reinforced exactly why I have the opinion I do. Your sarcasm imho is why I would prefer that Mark and the others share absolutely nothing with you. Quite frankly your hypocrisy is unbearable. You have the nerve to comment to Mark that he is making this personal and you make comments like this one then later hide behind " just kidding" But again ...just my opinion !


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> I personally would be happier if there was a private venue for this for owners at the Ocean Club only.
> The only reason I have continued to post is because I cannot stand by and abide by the downright nasty , sarcastic, and insulting comments made by you and a couple of others towards Mark and his groups efforts when they have taken the action they have taken in order to help the rest of the owners. Agree or disagree with the action imho he has been subjected to a ridiculous amount of abuse from you and your cronies. It has offended me greatly and I dont even know the man.
> If you wish to trade credentials feel free to contact me through private messages and I'll be happy to show you mine if you show me yours. You have completely reinforced exactly why I have the opinion I do. Your sarcasm imho is why I would prefer that Mark and the others share absolutely nothing with you. Quite frankly your hypocrisy is unbearable. You have the nerve to comment to Mark that he is making this personal and you make comments like this one then later hide behind " just kidding" But again ...just my opinion !



I do notice that you only have a problem when the comments are against the side you have a vested interest in. I did not notice that you felt compelled to comment when Mark made a completely personal slam on Eric or Sue.

I do not hide behind "just kidding". I made one remark to Love in anger that I apologized for. In terms of being sarcastic, I plead no defense. But I am not exactly the Lone Ranger in that department. But my posts are not attacks on Mark's person, they are expressions of disagreement with his crusade. They represent my opinion. I have not called anyone in this thread "clueless" or "stupid" or a "marriott spy" or that they worship MVCI.

And my characterization of this crusade is tame compared to Mark's characterizations of the AOC Board or his defamation of MVCI. If you live by the sword, then you die by the sword. I was not the first to engage in such conduct.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> I do notice that you only have a problem when the comments are against the side you have a vested interest in. I did not notice that you felt compelled to comment when Mark made a completely personal slam on Eric or Sue.
> 
> I do not hide behind "just kidding". I made one remark to Love in anger that I apologized for. In terms of being sarcastic, I plead no defense. But I am not exactly the Lone Ranger in that department. But my posts are not attacks on Mark's person, they are expressions of disagreement with his crusade. The represent my opinion. I have not called anyone in this thread "clueless" or "stupid" or a "marriott spy" or that they worship MVCI.
> 
> And my characterization of this crusade is tame compared to Mark's characterizations of the AOC Board or his defamation of MVCI. If you live by the sword, then you die by the sword. I was not the first to engage in such conduct.




Priceless....you say once again tht the comments you make are not personal....what do you call the comments in relation to my legal crededentials then ?

What has Mark's opinion towards Marriott or the board have to do with you that you feel the need to defend either? Never mmind...Im sure I can already see the answer coming. Still makes no sense to me....but once again...round and round and round and round.....


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Priceless....you say once again tht the comments you make are not personal....what do you call the comments in relation to my legal crededentials then ?
> 
> What has Mark's opinion towards Marriott or the board have to do with you that you feel the need to defend either? Never mmind...Im sure I can already see the answer coming. Still makes no sense to me....but once again...round and round and round and round.....



I do notice that you avoid the question of why you do not feel compelled to stand up for Sue or Eric. If you review this thread, I have stood up for people I do not agree with when they were attacked by others. 

If you want to make this about your desire to stand up for the oppressed, then extend that to all parties, not just those who you agree with. You are making this personal, because you do not like my personal style. You have never stated your legal "crededentials", so I cannot call them into question. If you want to engage in personal attacks, lets take it to PM. I have PM'd you per your request.


----------



## Luckybee

Ive responded to your pm...but I would say that suggesting that I got my law degree from a box of cereal would be calling my credentials into question !


----------



## ecwinch

In the interest of fairplay, I withdraw my previous sarcastic comment regarding Luckybee's license to practice law. I doubt that her license to practice law came from a box of Fruit Loops, but I never  characterized her law degree. In the US, a law degree does not grant you a license to practice or read the law. Trust me, it was just a degree, then I would be a lawyer. My comments were in regard to her law license, not law degree.

I stand behind the rest of my posts.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> In the interest of fairplay, I withdraw my previous sarcastic comment regarding Luckybee's license to practice law. I doubt that her license to practice law came from a box of Fruit Loops, but I never  characterized her law degree. In the US, a law degree does not grant you a license to practice or read the law. Trust me, it was just a degree, then I would be a lawyer. My comments were in regard to her law license, not law degree.
> 
> I stand behind the rest of my posts.




Well in the interest of fair play I can tell you that in Canada a degree does not automatically admit one to the Bar either....procedures are quite similiar here to most of your states...ie Bar Admission exams, articling etc. 

Nuff said about this .....have a nice night(morning


----------



## lovearuba

*my position*



ecwinch said:


> The purpose is serves is to silent the critics. You complain on why we criticize, but you fail to take a real simple step to answer us. Just like you accuse the AOC board of.
> 
> So do not complain when we continue to post this forum. Mark chose to have this discussion in a public forum in order to solicit the widest possible forum to air his complaints and to bring pressure on Marriott. Most other concerned owner groups form and then move to a private venue to communicate with each other. Yet this group has continued to post to TUG. One has to wonder what why that is, if not to bring public attention and force MVCI to address their issues and seek resolution to avoid bad "press". So if your want to do that, then you need address the public concerns that are voiced by non-owners.
> 
> Again, I have not asked that Mark post any of his information on this forum. I have asked that he send his communication with the Board to me by e-mail. You keep suggesting that I want it posted to the forum.
> 
> I am starting to think that if you are a lawyer, then your license to practice law might have come from a box of Fruit Loops. Maybe a Captain Crunch. But perhaps that is why you phrased your comment on the law the way you did.


 
I understand the curiosity but I also understand that too much information may have already been posted here which did not help the cause.  You yourself continue to use the word lawsuit which none of the "crusaders" have used in quite a while.  Other tactics have been used.  I also agree with Modofaruba, if tactics getting both sides to sit down and have a discussion that was genuine it would go a long way.  Have a great day and I am so sad those SOX are floundering.


----------



## modoaruba

lovearuba said:


> I understand the curiosity but I also understand that too much information may have already been posted here which did not help the cause.  You yourself continue to use the word lawsuit which none of the "crusaders" have used in quite a while.  Other tactics have been used.  I also agree with Modofaruba, if tactics getting both sides to sit down and have a discussion that was genuine it would go a long way.  Have a great day and I am so sad those SOX are floundering.



Was the "f" used in my name put there deliberatly because the Sox lost?
Are you attacking me after we were to be nice?(Just kidding,obviously).
That's how crazy this whole thing is getting.
Let's go for the powwow.


----------



## ecwinch

I agree that the tone of this thread has turned nasty. I have apologized to Luckybee, and I extend that apology to Love, Modo, and Mark. I will try to do a better job in toning down the sarcasm. That might make this thread less fun, but I will try. 

I think it is important to note that there really is only a small group that is keeping this debate active, and there is no reason that we should not be civil to each other, regardless of the difference of our opinions.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee, serious question:

Considering that you've posted that you wouldn't have a problem with MVCI severing its management contract with MAOC, is it possible that your goals here may actually be at odds with what this concerned owners' group wants?

Eric's point that was also made by Dave, Dean, John and several others throughout this thread makes sense if the goal is for MAOC to remain an MVCI resort.  If any of them would be allowed to review ownership documents and/or correspondence, they could offer an unbiased view of the entire situation (rather than just the few tidbits that have been posted here) which could prevent the group from making serious errors or impossible demands.  Despite the fact that they are not MAOC owners, they do have a combined wealth of knowledge of timesharing contract issues and practices as well as the MVCI model - why the unwillingness to take advantage of the knowledge that's been offered for free?!

It's worth a shot, isn't it - especially since two people here have now stated that perhaps mediation is the answer?  Wouldn't it be better to enter mediation armed with that combined knowledge?  Because certainly no mediator is going to enforce the hardline "Marriott/MVCI/the BOD is wrong wrong WRONG! and we want them to CHANGE!" mindset that's been displayed here.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> Was the "f" used in my name put there deliberatly because the Sox lost?



I missed that until you pointed it out, and then I snickered.  Nice work, Lovearuba, and I'm sad along with you and the rest of The Nation.  Did you notice too that nobody seemed to have any get-up-and-go this morning?  

Okay, Modo, we're 8-4 against you now for the season, and it's time for mine and Love's team to get back to work.  Be afraid, be very afraid.  :rofl:


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> I agree that the tone of this thread has turned nasty. I have apologized to Luckybee, and I extend that apology to Love, Modo, and Mark. I will try to do a better job in toning down the sarcasm. That might make this thread less fun, but I will try.
> 
> I think it is important to note that there really is only a small group that is keeping this debate active, and there is no reason that we should not be civil to each other, regardless of the difference of our opinions.




Yes he did and we had a pleasant pm exchange....Im going to be good too


----------



## Luckybee

SueDonJ said:


> Luckybee, serious question:
> 
> Considering that you've posted that you wouldn't have a problem with MVCI severing its management contract with MAOC, is it possible that your goals here may actually be at odds with what this concerned owners' group wants?
> 
> Eric's point that was also made by Dave, Dean, John and several others throughout this thread makes sense if the goal is for MAOC to remain an MVCI resort.  If any of them would be allowed to review ownership documents and/or correspondence, they could offer an unbiased view of the entire situation (rather than just the few tidbits that have been posted here) which could prevent the group from making serious errors or impossible demands.  Despite the fact that they are not MAOC owners, they do have a combined wealth of knowledge of timesharing contract issues and practices as well as the MVCI model - why the unwillingness to take advantage of the knowledge that's been offered for free?!
> 
> It's worth a shot, isn't it - especially since two people here have now stated that perhaps mediation is the answer?  Wouldn't it be better to enter mediation armed with that combined knowledge?  Because certainly no mediator is going to enforce the hardline "Marriott/MVCI/the BOD is wrong wrong WRONG! and we want them to CHANGE!" mindset that's been displayed here.



My goals are definitely not to have the relationship with Marriott severed. What I did say(and gawd forbid Im not searching back to find the exact quote....lol) was that it might not be the worst thing in the world if that happened. In other words if it were up to me severing wouldnt be my first choice but if it were the end result I dont think that I personally would feel as though the sky has fallen. There are just to many other options out there nowadays to be too concerned that Marriott "might" leave. 
Mediation is a great option but im not convinced that it would solve all the problems in this case. Remember this is just my opinion but I wouldnt be satisfied if the current board continues to sit. That may or may not happen if the group continues with the course of conduct embarked on...but that would be my goal.....dunno if that would be the "groups" goal but I suspect it would be one of them. What I would like is that I dont have to worry, or even think about our timeshare in Aruba  Before with people on the board that I  trusted I didnt have to. I never thought at all about our timeshare...other than to make sure I got the right day for booking 13 months out...lol. IMHO just too much has happened for ME(note this is just about how I feel) to have faith in this board as currenty composed(and without going through all the history once again let me just say that the fact that members of  the current board ...the very members whose actions were being called into question were  the nominating committee for the most recent elections would give me more than reason for pause ).

The "group" or Allan or someone has hired counsel...my understanding is that it is competent counsel....I think it is best left in their hands at this point ...perhaps mediation might be suggested or discussed with the lawyer hired but once that step is taken(hiring lawyer) anything else may undermine what that counsel is in fact embarking on.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> My goals are definitely not to have the relationship with Marriott severed. What I did say(and gawd forbid Im not searching back to find the exact quote....lol) was that it might not be the worst thing in the world if that happened. In other words if it were up to me severing wouldnt be my first choice but if it were the end result I dont think that I personally would feel as though the sky has fallen. There are just to many other options out there nowadays to be too concerned that Marriott "might" leave.
> Mediation is a great option but im not convinced that it would solve all the problems in this case. Remember this is just my opinion but I wouldnt be satisfied if the current board continues to sit. That may or may not happen if the group continues with the course of conduct embarked on...but that would be my goal.....dunno if that would be the "groups" goal but I suspect it would be one of them. What I would like is that I dont have to worry, or even think about our timeshare in Aruba  Before with people on the board that I  trusted I didnt have to. I never thought at all about our timeshare...other than to make sure I got the right day for booking 13 months out...lol. IMHO just too much has happened for ME(note this is just about how I feel) to have faith in this board as currenty composed(and without going through all the history once again let me just say that the fact that members of  the current board ...the very members whose actions were being called into question were  the nominating committee for the most recent elections would give me more than reason for pause ).
> 
> The "group" or Allan or someone has hired counsel...my understanding is that it is competent counsel....I think it is best left in their hands at this point ...perhaps mediation might be suggested or discussed with the lawyer hired but once that step is taken(hiring lawyer) anything else may undermine what that counsel is in fact embarking on.



Fair enough.  But please notice I didn't say that you would be perfectly fine with, that it's your stated goal to have, MVCI severing their relationship with MAOC.  I said, "... you wouldn't have a problem with ..."  I appreciate that you need to point out the distinction, but it's one I was also making.

If this came to mediation, I would think that the expertise of timeshare gurus such as Dave, Eric, John and Dean could be an additional aid for the group's attorney.  That's all.


----------



## Chemee

I really wish this thread would die.  By the posts, lines have clearly been drawn and there will never be agreement.  So, why continue this banter?  Pertinent info is not being posted here and it should not be posted since there is an ongoing lawsuit.  Mark has the means to contact the owners on TUG via email and anyone stumbling upon this thread can contact him via TUG.  There's alot of baiting for the heck of it going on here.  Ignore it.


----------



## lovearuba

*Thread is still active*



Chemee said:


> I really wish this thread would die. By the posts, lines have clearly been drawn and there will never be agreement. So, why continue this banter? Pertinent info is not being posted here and it should not be posted since there is an ongoing lawsuit. Mark has the means to contact the owners on TUG via email and anyone stumbling upon this thread can contact him via TUG. There's alot of baiting for the heck of it going on here. Ignore it.


 
There will be updates when its the appropriate time and the news is worthy of posting.  I endorse continuing in keeping this thread open.  If you dont want to look at it, just ignore it.


----------



## Dean

Luckybee said:


> I personally would be happier if there was a private venue for this for owners at the Ocean Club only.
> The only reason I have continued to post is because I cannot stand by and abide by the downright nasty , sarcastic, and insulting comments made by you and a couple of others towards Mark and his groups efforts when they have taken the action they have taken in order to help the rest of the owners. Agree or disagree with the action imho he has been subjected to a ridiculous amount of abuse from you and your cronies. It has offended me greatly and I dont even know the man.
> If you wish to trade credentials feel free to contact me through private messages and I'll be happy to show you mine if you show me yours. You have completely reinforced exactly why I have the opinion I do. Your sarcasm imho is why I would prefer that Mark and the others share absolutely nothing with you. Quite frankly your hypocrisy is unbearable. You have the nerve to comment to Mark that he is making this personal and you make comments like this one then later hide behind " just kidding" But again ...just my opinion !


I like the mine's bigger than yours approach, LOL.  I have pointed out at least twice that there are venus to do this privately on groups such as Yahoo and you could even direct people from here to there.  Otherwise this is a somewhat public forum and I'm sorry if you feel put upon because some of us have chosen to participate that are not owners at your resort.


----------



## lovearuba

*not deliberate*



modoaruba said:


> Was the "f" used in my name put there deliberatly because the Sox lost?
> Are you attacking me after we were to be nice?(Just kidding,obviously).
> That's how crazy this whole thing is getting.
> Let's go for the powwow.


 
I know you know I have more class than that.  I appreciate your comments.  I think you have a generally balanced view.  

As a sox fan, it gives me great pleasure to know we no longer have that criticism of not winning the world series in 86 years and having that Babe Ruth curse.  I have seen two world series and that is enough for me. I would love to see them win again but if they don't, I still have fond memories of drinking champagne at midnight on a work night and getting up to go to work so I could boast with the rest of the sox fans.  I work across the street from Fenway park so I know how truly exciting it is to be in first place.  I will continue to wear my sox t-shirt proudly even if the yankees win.  They are rivals because they are both great teams.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> I know you know I have more class than that.  I appreciate your comments.  I think you have a generally balanced view.
> 
> As a sox fan, it gives me great pleasure to know we no longer have that criticism of not winning the world series in 86 years and having that Babe Ruth curse.  I have seen two world series and that is enough for me. I would love to see them win again but if they don't, I still have fond memories of drinking champagne at midnight on a work night and getting up to go to work so I could boast with the rest of the sox fans.  I work across the street from Fenway park so I know how truly exciting it is to be in first place.  I will continue to wear my sox t-shirt proudly even if the yankees win.  They are rivals because they are both great teams.



Knock on wood, I'd never wish for a return to the old days when we hoped against hope and watched our team turn dreams into nightmares.  But the one good thing about those days was knowing that you could walk up to the gate and get into Fenway Park 15 minutes before any game ...

Lovearuba, do your different shirts remind you of different seasons, and are some more "loved" (worn?) than others?  Some of my shirts are old friends.  Last weekend in Baltimore one woman had an old "REMY 2" shirt on, and boy did I have shirt envy.


----------



## m61376

On another note, the design boards in the lobby are very nice and, when all is done, the rooms should be lovely. The fixtures in the lobby were interesting (for lack of a better description); personally, I wouldn't have spent that kind of money either on them or on what I assume was the glass artwork on the wall in the reception area, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. But the room furnishings look like they will be impressive when done- modern with a Caribbean flair.


----------



## Luckybee

Dean said:


> I like the mine's bigger than yours approach, LOL.  I have pointed out at least twice that there are venus to do this privately on groups such as Yahoo and you could even direct people from here to there.  Otherwise this is a somewhat public forum and I'm sorry if you feel put upon because some of us have chosen to participate that are not owners at your resort.




Perhaps you should have read the question I was responding to . Ecwhich and I have put this behind us and you wont bait me back in


----------



## Dean

Luckybee said:


> Perhaps you should have read the question I was responding to . Ecwhich and I have put this behind us and you wont bait me back in


Not trying to bait you, just acknowledging that I found it funny.  Now if you'd take the same approach and not worry if those of us who are not owners at your resort participate in this thread, all the better.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Was I just not nice?
> Yankees won again. Of course I am nice.



I notice that Fake-Rod has "back-spasms" and has not played the last two nights in Seattle. I think it is more likely "ego-spasms", and his frail psyche cannot handle the boo's from the Seattle fans.

Yes, we still hate him up here. And not because he left, it was the disingenuous way he handled the situation. Griffey left, and we still loved him. 

Apologies for those who expected an AOC update. I return you to your normally scheduled crusade.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> I notice that Fake-Rod has "back-spasms" and has not played the last two nights in Seattle. I think it is more likely "ego-spasms", and his frail psyche cannot handle the boo's from the Seattle fans.
> 
> Yes, we still hate him up here. And not because he left, it was the disingenuous way he handled the situation. Griffey left, and we still loved him.
> 
> Apologies for those who expected an AOC update. I return you to your normally scheduled crusade.



By the way,how's your mom? Hopefully everything went well.

Even though I am an avid Yankee fan,I myself have no love for A-Rod either.
But I still love those Yankees.

NO apologies here for not updating on the AOC.


----------



## qlaval

I don't want to be rude but why don't you PM each other instead?....


----------



## modoaruba

qlaval said:


> I don't want to be rude but why don't you PM each other instead?....



Pardon moi!


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Pardon moi!



Just ignore it. There is nothing wrong with a short friendly exchange in a thread. I see it all the time on TUG, and I am sure that there are others in this thread that are interested in an update.  Part of TUG is about community building, and you cannot have that without some personal exchanges in threads. It would be a different different story if we have 5-10 back and forth's that are off-topic.

My mom is doing ok, she is having some post-op respiratory issues. Hopefully that gets resolved this week. 

Thanks for asking.


----------



## Broadwaydanny

*New here - some OC thoughts*

Greetings to all on this board and particularly this thread.

I took the time to read through most of it's contents, and as an OC owner, I am concerned to say the least.

I will not comment specifically on the OC issues as they have been addressed and debated ad nauseum.   I would just like to add soem thoughts and observations from our recent trip to the oc:

Just returned from two weeks at the Ocean Club this past Thursday and I offer some thoughts.

The new lobby reminded us of the decorations at the Bellagio in Las Vegas. It was mentioned somewhere here that the fixtures alone cost over $100,000.

Did the owners pay for it, or did Marriott? If it was the owners, considering all of the issues at the OC, did we need to spend so much?

The renovations in the rooms look great, but they are retaining the hot tubs in the rooms which, IMHO, is a waste of space. Better use would have been a washer and dryer in the room. Supposedly, in a survey of the owners, over 50% voted to retain the hot tubs. I never received such a survey.

Once we asked the Concierge to call for a restaurant reservation. We did it in the AM on our way out to the beach, and she stated she would leave a message during the day to confirm. At 5 PM that evening no message.
I called the restaurant and they had no reservation for us. The Concierge never called, and I made my own reservation. Not typical Marriott service.

I found it hard to believe as owners we are charged $1.00 for local calls.

Despite a HUGE yearly maintenance fee and 3 assessments, we still have to pay government taxes of around $6.00 - $6.50 per day. I thought taxes were included in the maintenance fees.

We observed numerous cases where Surf Club owners or renters were on the OC beach. Security was no where to be found on the OC beach and SC people ignored the OC beach attendants when asked to leave. OC owners are not allowed on or near the SC pool, and it is enforced vigorously.

The SC beach beach looked like Jones Beach on a hot Sunday. Many bathers in the OC part of the ocean told me they walked over to avoid the crowds and the BOATS! I feel sorry for SC owners with the overcrowding. IMHO, out of greed, Marriott OVERBUILT the SC.  I hope the OC club policies at the beach remain and are enforced.

Finally, TOO MANY boats going WAY TOO FAST around the swimming areas.

What should be a calm, placid ocean often becomes like jumping waves at the Jersey shore. Eventually, some one is going to get hurt.

We LOVE Aruba, and overall our accomadations at the OC, but are concerned about costs, the SC overbuilding, and further commercialization of the north end of the island.


Report this post


----------



## Dean

Broadwaydanny said:


> We observed numerous cases where Surf Club owners or renters were on the OC beach. Security was no where to be found on the OC beach and SC people ignored the OC beach attendants when asked to leave. OC owners are not allowed on or near the SC pool, and it is enforced vigorously.


While some of the fixtures are owned, the beach itself in Aruba is public.


----------



## ecwinch

Broadwaydanny said:


> Despite a HUGE yearly maintenance fee and 3 assessments, we still have to pay government taxes of around $6.00 - $6.50 per day. I thought taxes were included in the maintenance fees.



Taxes are included in maintenance fees. However increasingly governments are looking for extra tax revenue by implementing a bed tax, or Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). I do not recall one during my stay in Dec, but I have seen these are numerous other resorts - both MVCI and other resorts. As a timeshare owner, I would rather the party using the unit pay the tax, rather than having it lumped into the m/f.

And I agree, MVCI did overbuild the SC.


----------



## m61376

Broadwaydanny-
This isn't meant as a "which resort is better" reply, but just to note that people perceive things differently. I returned a week ago, so unless things were dramatically different over the last few days of your stay, neither water area was at all overcrowded, with plenty of room. The boats were well outside of the roped off swimming areas and there certainly weren't ocean type breaking waves in the area.

Generally speaking, people with the striped OC towels were under the OC palapas and surrounds and the blue SC towels at the SC. There was plenty of space and lots of unused chaises throughout the day at the SC beach as well as the OC's beach. I've been to Jones Beach and the beach at the SC looked nothing like it. As I said, there were stacks of dozens of unoccupied chaises throughout the day, and one could grab a bimini chaise as well (although these are restricted and can no longer be placed at or in front of the fourth row of palapas). Just about every day there were empty palapas at both the OC and the SC.

The concierges at the SC were helpful and efficient. I actually received a call the night before leaving home to see if I needed them to make any reservations, etc..

BTW- I do agree with the glass chandeliers and glass wall murals in the OC lobby. Maybe because they are just not my taste (and I love blown glass), I was surprised at the expenditure. But, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I imagine others will love it. They certainly are different.


----------



## Broadwaydanny

The second week of our stay of was more crowded then the first.  I agree, the OC and SC had plenty of room the first week, and a little less the second. Obviously the OC will always have more room because the beach front is wider vs. the amount of rooms.  At the SC, (and correct me if I am wrong but are there now FOUR towers?)  The beach is much smaller, and as a result, much more crowded.  The Jones beach comparisons were from the mouths of SC owners who came to the OC side to swim, not mine.

Yes, the beaches are public.  Does that make the the beach use rules for SC and OC owners unenforceable?  If so, why  have any rules at all?  I truly believe at some point, especially in high season the dam walls will break, and the SC owners will be at the OC beach en mass whether under Palapas or not.

With regard to the boats, yes, (thankfully) they stay outside of the ropes.  But I maintain that there are too many.  They go too fast, especially while approaching the shore inside the roped off swim boundaries.  This is not safe, and anyone familiar with public safety as I am would agree.  Just a matter of time friends.  Actually, during my stay I was informed that someone was injured at a resort on Palm Beach in a wave runner vs. some other watercraft accident.  By refusing to follow "no wake" rules, and come into shore very fast, they create waves and ocean disruptions quite annoying to many bathers and folks who are paying big bucks for a "placid" Caribean Ocean.  Many of us "beach bums" agreed about this during my stay.

There has been consensus here and elsewhere that the service at the OC has deteriorated a bit lately, and my Concierge story was just one illustration.
If the SC service is better, enjoy it while it lasts!


----------



## Dean

Broadwaydanny said:


> Yes, the beaches are public.  Does that make the the beach use rules for SC and OC owners unenforceable?  If so, why  have any rules at all?  I truly believe at some point, especially in high season the dam walls will break, and the SC owners will be at the OC beach en mass whether under Palapas or not.


It does for the public beach and makes any rules covering that area inappropriate.  The question I can't answer is technically where does the beach begin.


----------



## modoaruba

Dean said:


> It does for the public beach and makes any rules covering that area inappropriate.  The question I can't answer is technically where does the beach begin.



Anybody can put there personal towel and /or their private chair(not the resort's) and plop it on any piece of sand from the water to the physical steps of any resort or any structure unless otherwise posted. 

I have seen people from the inland and some who are from cruise ships utilize the beaches in front of the AOC and the SC.


----------



## lovearuba

*beach and pool integration*

I am also concerned with the integration policy related to the two resorts.  They were bought separately for different preferences.  I would not have purchased at OC if I knew SC folks would be using it.  I have more of a concern over sharing the beach than the pools.  Dont get me wrong, I have no desire to use the SC pool but I dont mind if they use the OCs.  The beach is a much different story.  SC has much less landscape and although the OC board continues to say the policy is enforced, I lost trust in them and I'm very worried that they will change the policy.

I also dont agree with people who have relatives in both resorts and think they have a right to share and should be accommodated.  This makes it difficult for the staff because when they try to enforce it they get a lot of push back and they basically let it go.  

Public Beach:  Its also important to know that if that condo next to the surf is ever opened we can all look for another place to stay because there will be no space on either beach areas.  There is nothing preventing the condo owners from using the beach.


----------



## Zac495

ecwinch said:


> Just ignore it. There is nothing wrong with a short friendly exchange in a thread. I see it all the time on TUG, and I am sure that there are others in this thread that are interested in an update.  Part of TUG is about community building, and you cannot have that without some personal exchanges in threads. It would be a different different story if we have 5-10 back and forth's that are off-topic.
> 
> My mom is doing ok, she is having some post-op respiratory issues. Hopefully that gets resolved this week.
> 
> Thanks for asking.



Glad your mom is doing well. Yes, I think this thread is on and off topic - and that's okay.


----------



## SueDonJ

Crowded beaches can sure be a bother on vacation, especially when you look around and know that you're not surrounded by resort guests.  I understand that the beach use can't be controlled past a certain point, but do both Marriott resorts use a wristband system for their pools?  Non-guest use at the pools changes from being a bother to total aggravation, doesn't it?

Eric, good to hear your mom is doing okay and continuing to improve.  Good thoughts for her ....

Does Modo get double credit for using a foreign language in the Upping My Post Count Game?


----------



## m61376

Susan- I know the SC uses a wrist band system for its pools. It appears to be the more popular pool, with many more OC owners wanting to use the SC pool than vice versa, so I don't think the OC uses a wrist band system. 

Lovearuba-I agree- I think it is a problem when families or friends trade in or own at both resorts. It is very hard to control though, since at the very least guests at either resort can requests wristbands, etc.for the maximum capacity of their respective rooms at least. I venture to guess that guests traveling with others use the pool at the SC and the beach space at the OC with some frequency.

I actually found both the beach and the pool to be much less crowded last week versus the first week in February, which is considered peak season. I think the chair tag system at the SC is working the way it was designed to do- preventing people from reserving chairs at both locations and flitting back and forth. It was the first time I was there that, despite the resort being at 97% capacity, there were empty palapas all day long in front of both the OC and the SC. I know everyone has their own perception of what crowded means, but it was nothing like Jones Beach or the Hamptons and certainly nothing like Waikiki Beach or the French Riviera- now those latter two are crowded beaches!

I, too, am a bit concerned about Aquacondos. I did hear a rumor that they had made a deal with the Holiday Inn and I am hoping that rumor is correct. I know over the winter Moombas was quite busy renting out their cabanas and chairs, but they were all stacked up last week, so I am assuming they were catering to the cruise crowd over the winter. I am guessing that they will be accommodating some of the condo owners, but I agree when sold out it could be a huge issue. I am assuming that neither HOA would make any concessions to the condo complex and I am hoping that they have negotiated something with the Holiday Inn, which would be their most convenient access to the beach anyway.


----------



## modoaruba

True or not true I do not know for sure first handedly, someone told me at the AOC that they went downtown and a store was selling the same wristbands given out at the SC for the pool in various colors to coordinate with the weeks.
Anyone else hear this?


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> True or not true I do not know for sure first handedly, someone told me at the AOC that they went downtown and a store was selling the same wristbands given out at the SC for the pool in various colors to coordinate with the weeks.
> Anyone else hear this?



I've heard it about the towels ... a friend of my sister's owns a house in Aruba which she has rented several times.  In the house she found piles of towels with a note about which ones were used at which resorts on the island.  She asked the owner how/why he got them, and he said he simply sent one of his workers to the properties to get them but didn't ask any questions.  She told me about it when she and her family came to SurfWatch with us and the towels there looked familiar but were a different color than in Aruba - I think the Aruba properties must use striped towels, too?


----------



## qlaval

modoaruba said:


> True or not true I do not know for sure first handedly, someone told me at the AOC that they went downtown and a store was selling the same wristbands given out at the SC for the pool in various colors to coordinate with the weeks.
> Anyone else hear this?



I don't know about any store downtown selling them still they are very easy to order online....

Invalid URL....
http://www.....bracelets.html


----------



## modoaruba

qlaval said:


> I don't know about any store downtown selling them still they are very easy to order online....
> 
> 
> Do I dare ask how you know this?
> Know where I can get AOC look a like towels?


----------



## qlaval

modoaruba said:


> Do I dare ask how you know this?
> Know where I can get AOC look a like towels?



First let me tell you that I'm not providing this link to help people circumvent the reason why they are used but rather to show how easy they are to come by...
(on 2th thought I think I will delete the link... it could encourage some to gain access illegally...)
Modoaruba could you edit your URL in your quote/unquote to render it useless... 

And yes the towels are easy to come by as well but you will undertsand that I won't say how... :ignore:


----------



## Luckybee

It is going to take better monitoring to keep non OC owners and guests away from the OC palapas and chairs. I say this because dh and I always bring our own beach towels which are very bright and bear no resemblance to either oc or sc towels(we like the really big ones where u only need one towel that covers the whole chair . We always do the beach, not the pool. If we have palapa ressies then we have a palapa, and if not then just grab a couple of chairs. Funny thing though. In the past few years only once have we ever been asked as to whether we were guests. After a week or so I expect they might recognize the towels but for the first couple of days we're never asked at all (Not complaining about not being bugged but...really we should be bugged).


----------



## luvmypt

*Reserve Fees*

Anybody know if our 2010 maintenance fees going to include the amount of reserve fees (give or take) we paid in 2009?  Thanks.


----------



## marksue

We wont know for sure until the bills are issued but it will proabably be close.


----------



## laurac260

*not an owner but...*

I thumbed thru this thread out of curiousity.

Here is what I surmised:

If the owners get stuck paying the cost of the roof, then alot of ppl get screwed.  

If Marriott pays for it themselves, they will pass the cost on to the entire Marriott timeshare owners in some form or fashion, and alot of ppl will get screwed.

If there is a class action lawsuit which forces Marriott to pay for it themselves, the owners pay legal fees, Marriott pays legal fees, all the owners in the Marriott system will get the cost passed on to them in some form or fashion, and alot of ppl will get screwed (except the lawyers of course).

Doesn't sound like anyone will win no matter what the scenario.


----------



## ecwinch

laurac260 said:


> I thumbed thru this thread out of curiousity.
> 
> Here is what I surmised:
> 
> If the owners get stuck paying the cost of the roof, then alot of ppl get screwed.
> 
> If Marriott pays for it themselves, they will pass the cost on to the entire Marriott timeshare owners in some form or fashion, and alot of ppl will get screwed.
> 
> If there is a class action lawsuit which forces Marriott to pay for it themselves, the owners pay legal fees, Marriott pays legal fees, all the owners in the Marriott system will get the cost passed on to them in some form or fashion, and alot of ppl will get screwed (except the lawyers of course).
> 
> Doesn't sound like anyone will win no matter what the scenario.



I do not believe that #3 is an option. From what I understand Dutch law does not allow class actions suits. 

Which leads to the following theory of what is driving this:

The lack of class action laws is why the Board issue is so important. Only the Board can pursue the roof claim and they probably have signed away those rights in exchange for the 43% cost sharing. In the US, Mark would be able to be bring a derivative class action alleging demand futility. I do not believe he has that option under Dutch law, so he needs to gain control of the Board first. Then, the point could be advanced alleging undue influence or conflict of interest, and attempt to invalidate whatever agreement the Board might have signed indemnifying MVCI on the construction issue. Then when he wins that point, he then can sue on the construction issue. JMO. A lot of maybe, but no more than the same that the crusaders have used against the current BoD and MVCI.

Yes, the cost to repair the roof is relatively small in relation to size of MVCI, and I agree with your basic statement. Someone will lose, someone might gain a little, and all the lawyers will win. And if my theory is correct, they will win big.


----------



## lovearuba

*renovation updates*

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105638

Discussion is back to special assessments and maintenance fees


----------



## marksue

*article in Timeshare Today*

Former President and Board Member,
Aruba Ocean Club
An unusually dark cloud has formed
over the “One Happy Island” and the
Marriott Aruba Ocean Club (AOC) and
many owners are in shock. This is a case
study for timeshare owners, who
are responsible for vetting the
facilities before they purchase
and what to be aware of when the
developer turns over control to
the owners. 

[Remainder of article deleted in accordance with TUG policy, which prohibits copyright infringement. Those wishing to read the article should obtain a copy of Timesharing Today's September/October issue. Dave M, BBS Moderator]


TimeSharing Today Page 14 Sep/Oct, 2009
www.tstoday.com for back issues, Resort Report Cards, articles on resorts and much more


----------



## ecwinch

It is on page 13 BTW - the article is titled "Lessons Learned" for those who use the on-line version. I assume that Shep has given permission for it's reprint here as it is there copyrighted content. He generally has been supportive of owner efforts like this.

The by-line is:

By Allan S. Cohen, Potomac, MD

Also, if you would bold the Section headers like in the TSToday article, it might improve readability.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> I assume that Shep has given permission for it's reprint here. Unless it is a Letter to the Editor of course.



Hey Eric,
Are you implying that this last post by Mark is not appropriate?
I find it very encompassing and educational as to what is going on.
I for one cannot see any disputing it without another agenda.

I would like to see the adversarial point of view given while keeping the priority of the owner's in mind as did Allan.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Hey Eric,
> Are you implying that this last post by Mark is not appropriate?
> I find it very encompassing and educational as to what is going on.
> I for one cannot see any disputing it without another agenda.
> 
> I would like to see the adversarial point of view given while keeping the priority of the owner's in mind as did Allan.



To the contrary. I am making the assumption that TSToday has given permission for the reprint of their copyrighted content. Ideally, Mark would have removed any doubt by included that in his post i.e. "Reprinted with the permission of Timesharing Today". It is just that TUG has a firm policy on reprinting copyrighted content. TSToday is paid newsletter. It is not an issue of the content being encompassing or educational. And from the formatting, it is clearly just a cut and paste.

I am not disputing the content at all. Having spoken with Allan, I know what parts of his article are factual and which parts are opinion. 

In my post I also wanted to post who the author was, and what the article was titled. The latter so that authorized subscribers could reach it easily. I could not locate it when I first went to read the original article.

Other than that, feel free to infer my intention.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> To the contrary. I am making the assumption that TSToday has given permission for the reprint of their copyrighted content.
> 
> I am not disputing the content at all. Having spoken with Allan, I know what parts of his article are factual and which parts are opinion. It is just that TUG has a firm policy on reprinting copyrighted content. TSToday is paid newsletter. It is not an issue of the content being encompassing or educational. I have done the same on another site were users were reprinting TUG content.
> 
> In my post I also wanted to post what the article was titled, so that authorized subscribers could reach it easily. I could not locate it when I first went to read the original.
> 
> Other than that, feel free to infer my intention.



Sorry,I was responding to your original unedited post and did not know who Shep is.
Let's see what lurks to follow. G'day.


----------



## lovearuba

*some folks still dont know*



modoaruba said:


> Sorry,I was responding to your original unedited post and did not know who Shep is.
> Let's see what lurks to follow. G'day.


 

I am pleased to see the article, the more owners that are aware of the concerns we have the better.


----------



## marksue

Fiscal Year Description Due Date Amount Due 1 bedroom
2010 Operating Fee  2010-01-15  147.26 
2010 Reserve Fee  2010-01-15  309.93 
2010 Operating Fee  2010-01-15  632.21 
Total Charges   $1089.40 


Fiscal Year Description Due Date Amount Due 2 bedroom
2010 Operating Fee  2010-01-15  204.90 
2010 Reserve Fee  2010-01-15  470.72
2010 Operating Fee  2010-01-15  832.56
Total Charges   $1458.18

Anyone know why there are 2 operating Fees


----------



## qlaval

The cheaper operating fee should read as Utilities expenses.

And the Utilities expenses relates to the Electricity and Water/Sewer line items in the 2010 budget.


----------



## lovearuba

*special assessment*

Any updates on the second special assessment


----------



## marksue

Nothing on the assesment.


----------



## griffer331

*Special Assessment*

Special Assessment for 2010

1 bedroom $337.3
2 bedroom $484.25

This is all on the owners website.


----------



## qlaval

All this put together is a great new for all the owners.


----------



## vengle

Where on the website?  I just see the 1458. amount.....


----------



## vengle

Found it in the letter you need to read.  The 400 or so is due in March I believe.


----------



## luvmypt

vengle said:


> Found it in the letter you need to read.  The 400 or so is due in March I believe.



Are you referring to the Aruba Ocean Club Website as the Owners Website? If you are, I must be missing something because I can't find any letter more recent then June 2009. It stands to reason that the assessments had to come out later then that date so could you please be a little more specific as to where you saw this letter?. Thanks.


----------



## SueDonJ

luvmypt said:


> Are you referring to the Aruba Ocean Club Website as the Owners Website? If you are, I must be missing something because I can't find any letter more recent then June 2009. It stands to reason that the assessments had to come out later then that date so could you please be a little more specific as to where you saw this letter?. Thanks.



You should find it using the "Owners" tab at the Aruba Ocean Club page at my-vacationclub.com, and it you may see a link to it as a pop-up when you first open the page.

I'm glad the owners here are seeing some relief compared to the gigantic increases last year.


----------



## modoaruba

How do you spell relief? 

Are we supposed to feel better that the high fees are now not as high but still are?

We "possibly" bought into a defective building and are paying for about half of the replacement costs of the roof. As noted in Allan's article,we are not getting propper reimbursement from Marriott from the areas they utilize in our resorts,etc.

Yeah, great reprise in costs.


----------



## Chemee

We bought our 1-bedroom in 2001.  Below is a list of our fees since then.  Anyone want to guess what year the resort was considered sold out, turned over to the HOA, and therefore, out from under Marriott's protective wing?  Since then, fees have been way too much for us.

Aruba Ocean Club, 2010
1 bedroom
$989.90 (per maint fee bill on-line)
$337.30 special assessment

Aruba Ocean Club, 2009
1 bedroom
$1257.04
$492.30 special assessment

Aruba Ocean Club, 2008
1 bedroom
$837.00

Aruba Ocean Club, 2007
1 bedroom
$805.00

Aruba Ocean Club, 2006
1 bedroom
$683.00

Aruba Ocean Club, 2005
1 bedroom
$637.66

Aruba Ocean Club, 2004
1 bedroom
$613.84

Aruba Ocean Club, 2003
1 bedroom
$596.40

Aruba Ocean Club, 2002
1 bedroom
$566.48

Aruba Ocean Club, 2001
1 bedroom
$555.31


----------



## modoaruba

Chemee said:


> We bought our 1-bedroom in 2001.  Below is a list of our fees since then.  Anyone want to guess what year the resort was considered sold out, turned over to the HOA, and therefore, out from under Marriott's protective wing?  Since then, fees have been way too much for us.
> 
> Aruba Ocean Club, 2010
> 1 bedroom
> $989.90 (per maint fee bill on-line)
> $337.30 special assessment
> 
> Aruba Ocean Club, 2009
> 1 bedroom
> $1257.04
> $492.30 special assessment
> 
> Aruba Ocean Club, 2008
> 1 bedroom
> $837.00
> 
> Aruba Ocean Club, 2007
> 1 bedroom
> $805.00
> 
> Aruba Ocean Club, 2006
> 1 bedroom
> $683.00
> 
> Aruba Ocean Club, 2005
> 1 bedroom
> $637.66
> 
> Aruba Ocean Club, 2004
> 1 bedroom
> $613.84
> 
> Aruba Ocean Club, 2003
> 1 bedroom
> $596.40
> 
> Aruba Ocean Club, 2002
> 1 bedroom
> $566.48
> 
> Aruba Ocean Club, 2001
> 1 bedroom
> $555.31



So if you add in the cost of your week and you did not finance it,
you are averaging $2,000/week.


----------



## lovearuba

*fees*

Geez, I think these are going up at a faster rate than health care premiums


----------



## griffer331

I just added up every week and the average I came up with was $837.10


----------



## modoaruba

griffer331 said:


> I just added up every week and the average I came up with was $837.10



You did not include the cost of the TS and divide by 10 which would put the average close to $2000 at this time.(10 years)

Just got next year's bill in the mail as I write.

2010 operating fee-----------632.21
        replacement reserve----309.93
        utilities-----------------147.26

Total-------------------------1089.40 for 1BR Gold


In March there will be an additional 337.30 assessment charge.


Real Total-------------------1426.70

What a bargain


----------



## Broadwaydanny

*Relief?*

Between Maintenance and "assessment almost 2 GRAND?  ( 2 BR )

That's relief?

Certainly NOT what I signed up for or what I was told when I bought the week.

Will March 2010 be the END of the assessments, or will this be an annual thing?


----------



## modoaruba

Broadwaydanny said:


> Between Maintenance and "assessment almost 2 GRAND?  ( 2 BR )
> 
> That's relief?
> 
> Certainly NOT what I signed up for or what I was told when I bought the week.
> 
> Will March 2010 be the END of the assessments, or will this be an annual thing?



When you buy your pet puppy you have to feed it.
As it gets older and bigger you have to feed it more.
Didi they neglect to tell you that?


----------



## billymach4

modoaruba said:


> When you buy your pet puppy you have to feed it.
> As it gets older and bigger you have to feed it more.
> Didi they neglect to tell you that?



They neglected to tell you about the visits to the veterinarian. Boy do they really stick you with a bill.


----------



## Broadwaydanny

Can anyone here tell me how long the assessments will last, or will I continue to get [unclear] answers about puppies like I did from Modoaruba?

If the salesman sells me a teacup Yorkie, I have a good estimate of how much it will cost to feed as it gets older.

If the salesman sells me a teacup Yorkie that was defective, and it grows into a Pit Bull, well.....you get the picture now?


----------



## Broadwaydanny

*Are we suckers?*

Take a look at what other Aruba lovers are asying about our "puppies" .....

http://www.aruba-bb.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=75441&sid=cbee58d9d7eb569e922802e1842bfb92

We were all sold a bill of goods. Period.


----------



## SueDonJ

The March, 2010 bill is the last for this Special Assessment, which was spread over two years.  You can find quite a bit of information about your bills at the Aruba Ocean Club page of my-vacationclub.com.  Sign in and click the "Owners" tab about halfway down the page for links to various financial statements and notices from the GM and BOD.

I'm sorry if my using the word "relief" bothered people.  But honestly, I only meant relief in the sense that the bills for 2010 are a little bit less than what was expected following the last year's turmoil and financial overhauling at the resort.  Of course you're not expected to be jumping for joy, but every little bit helps.


----------



## lovearuba

*Real perspective*



Broadwaydanny said:


> Take a look at what other Aruba lovers are asying about our "puppies" .....
> 
> http://www.aruba-bb.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=75441&sid=cbee58d9d7eb569e922802e1842bfb92
> 
> We were all sold a bill of goods. Period.


 
You are right and to put it into perspective it does make sense to look at other fees on the same island.  Ours are outrageous and really need to get back to reasonable.  I enjoyed reading the link, its great to hear what non-Marriott owners think about this.  I hope you signed up to work on getting transparency, if not send me a pm and I will send you some information.  Marriott has indicated this is the last of the assessments and supposedly the higher maintenance fees will prevent a future one.  I have no reason to believe this because their credibility has seriously suffered with owners at the ocean club.


----------



## Dean

Broadwaydanny said:


> Take a look at what other Aruba lovers are asying about our "puppies" .....
> 
> http://www.aruba-bb.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=75441&sid=cbee58d9d7eb569e922802e1842bfb92
> 
> We were all sold a bill of goods. Period.


You do realize that some active posters on that board are very anti timeshare and some just simply not nice or reasonable.  As I posted on that BBS, La Cabana is actually more according than is the Marriott with a SA of $2K for a 2 BR and for a lot less than the OC owners are getting out of it.


----------



## modoaruba

Dean said:


> You do realize that some active posters on that board are very anti timeshare and some just simply not nice or reasonable.  As I posted on that BBS, La Cabana is actually more according than is the Marriott with a SA of $2K for a 2 BR and for a lot less than the OC owners are getting out of it.



Hope you are not aiming at me.
I just try to look at the raw financials.
When we first bought it was very reasonable and we were naive.
We thought that at 7 years we would break even.
But with escalating costs and special assessments the break even costs are delayed by a few more years.
Comparing the going rental fees for equal units and seasons at this time sets us back even more.
This is not being anti TS.
This are statements of financial common sense.
What the future will bring is unknown just like the special assessments were unknown 10 years ago when we bought.
Can anyone assure us that there will not be anther in the next 10?
I don't think so.
Playing to the other side,if the economy recovers and rentals go up along with increases in values of our TSs,then the break even weeks will narrow of course.But does anyone really believe that?
Bottom line--we still own the liability.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> Hope you are not aiming at me.
> I just try to look at the raw financials.
> When we first bought it was very reasonable and we were naive.
> We thought that at 7 years we would break even.
> But with escalating costs and special assessments the break even costs are delayed by a few more years.
> Comparing the going rental fees for equal units and seasons at this time sets us back even more.
> This is not being anti TS.
> This are statements of financial common sense.
> What the future will bring is unknown just like the special assessments were unknown 10 years ago when we bought.
> Can anyone assure us that there will not be anther in the next 10?
> I don't think so.
> Playing to the other side,if the economy recovers and rentals go up along with increases in values of our TSs,then the break even weeks will narrow of course.But does anyone really believe that?
> Bottom line--we still own the liability.


Not at all, you are way off base.  Broadwaydanny posted a link to another BBS where many there are definitely anti TS.  I was alerting him to allow him to give him perspective on the thread linked and responses on that BBS in general.  That's why I said that board, not this one.  That said, it is a great place to get Aruba info and most of the people there are nice as well, just some have a different perspective.


----------



## Broadwaydanny

*How do you spell RELIEF?*

S  -  E  - L  -  L

I am on the other Aruba BB most of the time and I've never perceived it to be anti TS, or anti anything else for that matter.  Actually, the topic of timeshares rarely ever comes up there.

The folks there were genuiely surprised at what we are paying compared to the aggregate of other TS on the island.  I perceived NOTHING anti timeshare in what they were saying.  Actually, I believe most of the posters own TS themselves at other venues on the island.

To the poster who confirmed March 1020 as the "last" assessment, thank you.

However, if anyone here really believes that will be the last one, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.

Who here wants to start a pool to guess when the NEXT assessments will take place?


----------



## Dean

Broadwaydanny said:


> S  -  E  - L  -  L
> 
> I am on the other Aruba BB most of the time and I've never perceived it to be anti TS, or anti anything else for that matter.  Actually, the topic of timeshares rarely ever comes up there.
> 
> The folks there were genuiely surprised at what we are paying compared to the aggregate of other TS on the island.  I perceived NOTHING anti timeshare in what they were saying.  Actually, I believe most of the posters own TS themselves at other venues on the island.
> 
> To the poster who confirmed March 1020 as the "last" assessment, thank you.
> 
> However, if anyone here really believes that will be the last one, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.
> 
> Who here wants to start a pool to guess when the NEXT assessments will take place?


SA are really quite unusual with Marriott, I doubt there will be another in the near future at tht resort.  While I don't post often to that board, I definitely disagree with you as to the TS slant.  Look at applicable thread's over the next few months, I think you'll get a different perspective, esp where the Marriott is involved.


----------



## qlaval

Broadwaydanny said:


> Take a look at what other Aruba lovers are saying about our "puppies" .....
> 
> http://www.aruba-bb.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=75441&sid=cbee58d9d7eb569e922802e1842bfb92
> ...


I would not give to much credit about what's writen on that thread.
This forum is well know for the anti-Marriott sentiment of a small but quite vocal group. 
(OC, SC, and Stellaris included, which they called Marriottville....)
The worst posts have seen there usually came from TS owners of the resorts I wouldn't like to stay in anyway... :ignore:


----------



## lovearuba

*information for users*

Thanks for posting Mark, there is a lot of information on the website for owners so it is nice to be able to share comments, read the newslines and participate in the new forum.  Have a great day


----------



## Kelly&Sean

I went to this site and to view the information it stated that you had to be a registered member.  So I went to register and in the terms it states that my name will be added to the list of concerned owners.  I do not want my name added until I see the information presented.  Is there a way to register without my name being added?  The Disclaimer includes "You are also agreeing that you support efforts to gain more transparency on the ASSOCIATION (Aruba Ocean Club Association Board)."  The Privacy Policy says "The administrators of this site will not use your personal information for any purpose other than to support the efforts to gain transparency on the Aruba Ocean Club Homeowners Board. Your information will not be provided to any other parties. It may be used to provide Marriott Vacation Club International a listing of owners that support the goal of gaining more transparency on the Aruba Ocean Club Homeowners Board."


----------



## tlwmkw

Kelly&Sean,

It sounds like this web-site is fishing for names to add to the list of concerned owners.  If transparency is important why are they creating a members only site?  Why not just make it open to anyone who wants to see what is going on- then they can opt for their name to be added to the list?

Where is the big law-suit that was supposedly being filed on behalf of the owners?  There was much talk of this months ago and now nothing has happened.  I gave up reading this thread because nothing new ever comes along and this just sounds like more of the same.  Efforts that would ensure that the building is sound and that future expense would therefore be kept at a minimum would be more prudent.

tlwmkw


----------



## lovearuba

*you are sadly mistaken*



tlwmkw said:


> Kelly&Sean,
> 
> It sounds like this web-site is fishing for names to add to the list of concerned owners. If transparency is important why are they creating a members only site? Why not just make it open to anyone who wants to see what is going on- then they can opt for their name to be added to the list?
> 
> Where is the big law-suit that was supposedly being filed on behalf of the owners? There was much talk of this months ago and now nothing has happened. I gave up reading this thread because nothing new ever comes along and this just sounds like more of the same. Efforts that would ensure that the building is sound and that future expense would therefore be kept at a minimum would be more prudent.
> 
> tlwmkw


 
You are making assumptions on information that you are not privy to.  The transparency cause is related to transparency of information for owners related to their timeshare, not non-owners.  It is an owners website and only owners that are not happy with the way they get information related to board meetings and maintenance fees.  You should not assume that nothing has happened behind the scenes.  A lot of things are happening.  If you are an owner and you go to the website and read the opening page and you do not agree to the mission of the group behind the website then you should not go forward with registration.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> ... If you are an owner and you go to the website and read the opening page and you do not agree to the mission of the group behind the website then you should not go forward with registration.



That's certainly fair, it's a restricted website after all, but it does put owners such as Kelly&Sean in a tough spot.  How are they supposed to know if they want to support the mission, if they don't have access to the information that would explain the perceived need for the mission?

Kelly&Sean, I'm not an owner there so do not have access to that website.  But I would guess that if you read through this entire thread (whew!) you will be able to learn enough to know whether or not you are interested in registering at that website.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> You are making assumptions on information that you are not privy to.  The transparency cause is related to transparency of information for owners related to their timeshare, not non-owners.  It is an owners website and only owners that are not happy with the way they get information related to board meetings and maintenance fees.  You should not assume that nothing has happened behind the scenes.  A lot of things are happening.  If you are an owner and you go to the website and read the opening page and you do not agree to the mission of the group behind the website then you should not go forward with registration.


That would seem to conflict with the disclaimer at the right top of that initial page that says:


> All personal information provided to this site will be used strictly for the purpose of communicating updates regarding the Aruba Ocean Club. It will be kept strictly confidential and will not be sold, shared or otherwise disclosed to any other party.


I don't have a problem with a separate owners site, I suggested it several times in this discussion and I think it's the proper way to proceed for such a group.  However, it would seem that there may be owners that want to investigate prior to deciding to add their name to any list that might be used to communicate with Marriott or in any other way.  I'd suggest that one should allow owners there to sign in and then have a separate option of adding their name to any list.  As it stands now, sharing any names from a list collected in such a way is illegal without the express permission of the owner to do so.  Still, any such list would not meet any criteria that Marriott (or any other company would have) to document such names legally for a proxy or other communication with Marriott, lawyers or other entities.


----------



## modoaruba

tlwmkw said:


> Kelly&Sean,
> 
> It sounds like this web-site is fishing for names to add to the list of concerned owners.  If transparency is important why are they creating a members only site?  Why not just make it open to anyone who wants to see what is going on- then they can opt for their name to be added to the list?
> 
> Where is the big law-suit that was supposedly being filed on behalf of the owners?  There was much talk of this months ago and now nothing has happened.  I gave up reading this thread because nothing new ever comes along and this just sounds like more of the same.  Efforts that would ensure that the building is sound and that future expense would therefore be kept at a minimum would be more prudent.
> 
> tlwmkw


If you haven't noticed,you ARE on the open for everyone site.
What is wrong with a private site for owners since it serves one purpose and that is for the benefit of the owners without outsider agendas.
Your choice.If you're an owner you have a right to the info, if not,you get plenty of info right here.
Criticise through knowledge not speculation.


----------



## lovearuba

*point of clarification*



Dean said:


> That would seem to conflict with the disclaimer at the right top of that initial page that says:
> I don't have a problem with a separate owners site, I suggested it several times in this discussion and I think it's the proper way to proceed for such a group. However, it would seem that there may be owners that want to investigate prior to deciding to add their name to any list that might be used to communicate with Marriott or in any other way. I'd suggest that one should allow owners there to sign in and then have a separate option of adding their name to any list. As it stands now, sharing any names from a list collected in such a way is illegal without the express permission of the owner to do so. Still, any such list would not meet any criteria that Marriott (or any other company would have) to document such names legally for a proxy or other communication with Marriott, lawyers or other entities.


 
Hi
This has been considered.  When you register there is a statement that you have to agree to letting you know that you are agreeing to support the cause and that your information will be only be used for that reason.  It gives owners the option to delete their account at any time.  The purpose of the site is very clear.  The intention is not to open it up so others that dont support it can debate about the purpose of the site.  The site is not a tug site where anyone can be a guest and spend time debating for the sake of debating.  You dont need to worry about other people signing up.  They are able to read the information and make their own decision.

For those that want any questions answered prior to signing up Allan's name, email address and phone number is listed on the right hand side of the page. He has always supported open communication.  

Any information provided to Marriott or related to any legal matters would be done with legal guidance to ensure it was done properly.

Folks have listened to your suggestion for a website and it is there to serve an important purpose to those of us who believe in the cause.


----------



## Kelly&Sean

I am an owner and I orginally did sign on to the cause but then requested that I be removed (I do not know if I was ever removed from the list though).  The reason I asked to be removed is that much has been said but I need to see in writing the things that have been said.  I have seen Marriotts side on the website and I have seen the new Ocean Club but what I have not seen is the documentation to support the concerned owners side.  I would be more then willing to sign on again if I see some written documentation.  Someone did comment that one can opt out once you register for this new site but the site does not indicate that.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> Hi
> This has been considered.  When you register there is a statement that you have to agree to letting you know that you are agreeing to support the cause and that your information will be only be used for that reason.  It gives owners the option to delete their account at any time.  The purpose of the site is very clear.  The intention is not to open it up so others that dont support it can debate about the purpose of the site.  The site is not a tug site where anyone can be a guest and spend time debating for the sake of debating.  You dont need to worry about other people signing up.  They are able to read the information and make their own decision.
> 
> For those that want any questions answered prior to signing up Allan's name, email address and phone number is listed on the right hand side of the page. He has always supported open communication.
> 
> Any information provided to Marriott or related to any legal matters would be done with legal guidance to ensure it was done properly.
> 
> Folks have listened to your suggestion for a website and it is there to serve an important purpose to those of us who believe in the cause.


As I said, I have no problems with it being closed or for owners only.  I do have a concern that one has to add their name to the list IF you are an owner at that resort, just to get information.  What you stated is contradictory to the statement I quoted from that home page.


----------



## marksue

Someone asked about the court case.  There is a case in Aruba as we speak.  The concerned owners have sued the board and MVCI for access to the owners list as well as the requirment of a notarized letter from each owner to call a special meeting.  

There is other court action being planned as we speak, which will be revealed when appropriate.


----------



## davidberg

*Don't be hoodwinked*

For any Ocean Club owners or any other timeshare owners don't be fooled by some of the postings. Try this for transparency - 'lovearuba' (who always writes in 3rd person about Allan) is in fact Allan. That is a fact and it can be taken to the bank. Just check who 'Love Aruba' is on his concerned owners website - do it quick though as he's certain to cover up his tracks.

On another note; I heard they lost their court case in Aruba - this I know because I let these guys fool me for too long as well. These supposed issues at that resort are all about one person's crusade - no more, no less. It's sad that he has caused all owners so much money in his personal crusade (of which was just mentioned by another tugbbs user that there never has been any proof of any of his claims)  because he's bitter about becoming an outcast. I personally have had enough of it. Life's too short to sweat the small stuff....


----------



## marksue

Well davidberg you have no idea what you are talking about.  So now you have changed from bergdavid.  We all know who the real david berg is. You are just a Marriott puppet making things up.    

the case is still going so dont try to say it isnt.  

And Love Aruba is not Allan,  nice try


----------



## lovearuba

*david berg*

Hi
Just for clarification, lovearuba is a name I use for this site. I am a married female with two grown children.  I own a 2 bedroom in aruba. Tug could easily take a look at the credit card I use to pay for the subscription, my name is on it.  I'm not Allan.  Ive never met Allan but I have helped with the website and I am proud to do that.  David Berg who posts here is not an owner at Marriott.  In fact he has tried to register for the website and had the nerve to threaten me because he was rejected.  He would not accept the terms of registration.  Any more posts from him will not be responded to from me.

As for the website, if you did register and read through the news posts, there are numerous posts you would find as much information as you need. If you are an owner, its your right to choose to be part of this group.  For those that really have an interest I encourage you to think about it but I dont want you to unless you agree with the cause.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Hi
> Just for clarification, lovearuba is a name I use for this site. I am a married female with two grown children.  I own a 2 bedroom in aruba. Tug could easily take a look at the credit card I use to pay for the subscription, my name is on it.  I'm not Allan.  Ive never met Allan but I have helped with the website and I am proud to do that.  David Berg who posts here is not an owner at Marriott.  In fact he has tried to register for the website and had the nerve to threaten me because he was rejected.  He would not accept the terms of registration.  Any more posts from him will not be responded to from me.
> 
> As for the website, if you did register and read through the news posts, there are numerous posts you would find as much information as you need. If you are an owner, its your right to choose to be part of this group.  For those that really have an interest I encourage you to think about it but I dont want you to unless you agree with the cause.



Though anything is possible in the age of the internet, having spoken with Allan, I would say that the chance that LoveAruba and Allan are the same person is extremely remote.

I do find the "support" clause of the Terms & Conditions to be an interesting contradiction for a group that wants to promote transparency. But I guess it depends on the manner in which that provision is applied.

For instance if a member of the site supports the goal, but disagrees with tactics being used to achieve the goal. 

Also, what is the governing body for that group - i.e. who makes the decisions?

And is there due process for disagreements between members, or a process for members to participate in the decision making process - either by representation or directly?


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> Though anything is possible in the age of the internet, having spoken with Allan, I would say that the chance that LoveAruba and Allan are the same person is extremely remote.
> 
> I do find the "support" clause of the Terms & Conditions to be an interesting contradiction for a group that wants to promote transparency. But I guess it depends on the manner in which that provision is applied.
> 
> For instance if a member of the site supports the goal, but disagrees with tactics being used to achieve the goal.
> 
> Also, what is the governing body for that group - i.e. who makes the decisions?
> 
> And is there due process for disagreements between members, or a process for members to participate in the decision making process - either by representation or directly?



First of all,the member's site is a private site with a purpose of sharing between like thinking minds.
Anybody can start a board and be able to be independent of the rest of the world with it's own rules and exclusions.
One of the goals is to achieve transparancy between Marriott,the Board and the owners.Transparancy to the rest of the world by the group and for the group is not an issue.If the group was open to the rest of the world it would obviously defite it's purpose and might as well stay with this board alone and get outside agendas to deal with.
As you can see in prior posts there has been numerous inhospitable contributors.
There are plenty of issues left on this board for others to debate in the open if they should choose to.
That is my opinion and wish kind regards to all.


----------



## ecwinch

ModoAruba

Do you see anything in my post that suggests that the "crusaders" do not have a right to meet on a private site or that private individuals should operate transparently with the "rest of the world"?

Do you even see any part where I ask - "why is the site private"?  Your response seems to be strictly on defending why the "crusaders" felt they needed to flee TUG and go hide on a private site. Given the veracity of their arguments, I completely understand that decision. As they say "If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".

And we can disagree that the "crusaders" need not operate in a transparent manner internally. I think that is the first thing a group that is seeking to combat a perceived lack of transparency needs to do. Particularly when they are soliciting support from the AOC owner community at large. Otherwise it is far too easy for individuals to steer the group in a direction to further their own personal agenda - like returning to the Board for instance.

In one of your posts you state "_If you're an owner you have a right to the info mentioned in a previous post that if not,you get plenty of info right here._ "

But I think that statement might be disingenuous. Given the terms and conditions, I suspect that you are only interested in the opinions of "like-minded" owners that will support the decisions of the self-appointed leadership. So it is a AOC owners "right" to that information, but only until the "crusaders" do not like their questions? Given the limitation of that "right", it is easy to see that you are behaving in the same manner as you accuse the AOC board of. You only want to hear the opinions of those that agree with you. It is not a group that is open to all AOC owners, only a particular sub-set.

I think that is all Kelly&Sean are saying. How will they know if they agree to support Allan's decisions in the future? And by extension, do they get kicked off if they start to disagree - and god forbid - "debate" the issues? Because it is a well know fact that "debating" issues is bad. One should just accept decisions and move on. Just like Allan does.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> ... I think that is all Kelly&Sean are saying. How will they know if they agree to support Allan's decisions in the future? And by extension, do they get kicked off if they start to disagree - and god forbid - "debate" the issues? ...



I think equally important, Kelly&Sean said that they (he? she?) do not know if their name was removed from the list of owners that the site is compiling:


> I am an owner and I orginally did sign on to the cause but then requested that I be removed (I do not know if I was ever removed from the list though). The reason I asked to be removed is that much has been said but I need to see in writing the things that have been said. I have seen Marriotts side on the website and I have seen the new Ocean Club but what I have not seen is the documentation to support the concerned owners side. I would be more then willing to sign on again if I see some written documentation. Someone did comment that one can opt out once you register for this new site but the site does not indicate that.



It's one thing to compile a list for the purpose that is expressly stated on the home page (bolding on site):


> All personal information provided to this site will be used strictly for the purpose of communicating updates regarding the Aruba Ocean Club. It will be kept strictly confidential and *will not be sold, shared or otherwise disclosed* to any other party.



It's quite another to compile a list for the purpose that Kelly&Sean found stated when they registered at the site (bolding mine):


> The Disclaimer includes "You are also agreeing that you support efforts to gain more transparency on the ASSOCIATION (Aruba Ocean Club Association Board)." The Privacy Policy says "The administrators of this site will not use your personal information for any purpose other than to support the efforts to gain transparency on the Aruba Ocean Club Homeowners Board. Your information will not be provided to any other parties. *It may be used to provide Marriott Vacation Club International a listing of owners* that support the goal of gaining more transparency on the Aruba Ocean Club Homeowners Board."



It appears to me, based entirely on what Kelly&Sean have related here as to the contents of the site, that there isn't anything more concrete or definitive on that site than what can be found here, for an owner to determine if s/he should give permission for his/her name to be placed on a list of disgruntled owners that may be made available to MVCI/Marriott.

As Dean said, there are red flags flying high here with respect to the "expressed permission" legalities of the compilation of names.  _[Edit]_  Also, it's questionable that the website list of names could be any more qualified than the one already submitted.  Remember "Mr. Clipboard"?  It appears to me that the website list is simply the electronic version of it.


----------



## lovearuba

*website*



Dean said:


> That would seem to conflict with the disclaimer at the right top of that initial page that says:
> I don't have a problem with a separate owners site, I suggested it several times in this discussion and I think it's the proper way to proceed for such a group. However, it would seem that there may be owners that want to investigate prior to deciding to add their name to any list that might be used to communicate with Marriott or in any other way. I'd suggest that one should allow owners there to sign in and then have a separate option of adding their name to any list. As it stands now, sharing any names from a list collected in such a way is illegal without the express permission of the owner to do so. Still, any such list would not meet any criteria that Marriott (or any other company would have) to document such names legally for a proxy or other communication with Marriott, lawyers or other entities.


 
No one is sharing any names from the site with anyone.  If we need a list of names a newsline will be sent to the registered owners asking them to review whatever is being sent, if they approve it then their name will be included.  If they do not respond, their information will not be used.  This is really the last time I am going to respond to some of the speculation in this site.  If any owner wants more information, feel free to send a pm to me and I will answer any questions you may have on the registration process.   

Any owner can sign up and later decide they no longer want their information maintained.  When they delete their account, it is deleted.  No record of it remains in the system.  Have a great day.


----------



## m61376

lovearuba said:


> No one is sharing any names from the site with anyone.  If we need a list of names a newsline will be sent to the registered owners asking them to review whatever is being sent, if they approve it then their name will be included.  If they do not respond, their information will not be used.  This is really the last time I am going to respond to some of the speculation in this site.  If any owner wants more information, feel free to send a pm to me and I will answer any questions you may have on the registration process.
> 
> Any owner can sign up and later decide they no longer want their information maintained.  When they delete their account, it is deleted.  No record of it remains in the system.  Have a great day.



Although I understand your feeling that you don't have to qualify yourself and are bristling a bit perhaps at all the second-guessing going on here, from an outside perspective it is clear that at least some visitors and potential "joiners" to your site are being discouraged from joining by the perception that by joining they are giving tacit approval to whatever the site administrators decide it is in everyone's best interests to send to Marriott. 

If, in fact, no one's name will be attached to any petition, document, etc., unless they give explicit permission to sign any such document, and that nothing will transpire by virtue of their joining the site other than to be able to garner information and to give the site administrators a way to contact owners, then you might consider rewording the home page of the website to avoid confusion.

Sometimes when one knows something it is very hard to comprehend that others may not read the information the way it was intended. Sounds like that is the case here.


----------



## lovearuba

*consideration*



m61376 said:


> Although I understand your feeling that you don't have to qualify yourself and are bristling a bit perhaps at all the second-guessing going on here, from an outside perspective it is clear that at least some visitors and potential "joiners" to your site are being discouraged from joining by the perception that by joining they are giving tacit approval to whatever the site administrators decide it is in everyone's best interests to send to Marriott.
> 
> If, in fact, no one's name will be attached to any petition, document, etc., unless they give explicit permission to sign any such document, and that nothing will transpire by virtue of their joining the site other than to be able to garner information and to give the site administrators a way to contact owners, then you might consider rewording the home page of the website to avoid confusion.
> 
> Sometimes when one knows something it is very hard to comprehend that others may not read the information the way it was intended. Sounds like that is the case here.


 
I will be happy to pass this recommendation along. Its not unreasonable.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> No one is sharing any names from the site with anyone.  If we need a list of names a newsline will be sent to the registered owners asking them to review whatever is being sent, if they approve it then their name will be included.  If they do not respond, their information will not be used.  This is really the last time I am going to respond to some of the speculation in this site.  If any owner wants more information, feel free to send a pm to me and I will answer any questions you may have on the registration process.
> 
> Any owner can sign up and later decide they no longer want their information maintained.  When they delete their account, it is deleted.  No record of it remains in the system.  Have a great day.


As I said, your statement previously





> This has been considered. When you register there is a statement that you have to agree to letting you know that you are agreeing to support the cause and that your information will be only be used for that reason.


 would seem to conflict with the disclaimer on the opening page that I quoted above.  One says you agree to support which seems to suggest your name and info would/could be used in association with other actions, the other says the info will not be shared.  Were I an owner at THAT resort looking to have the inside scoop, I'd have great reservations signing up with those conflicts and it seems from the info above, I'm not the only one.  Also requiring concerned members to agree to your position up front would seem extremely questionable at best, like posting a poll with only one choice.


----------



## lovearuba

*dean*



Dean said:


> As I said, your statement previously would seem to conflict with the disclaimer on the opening page that I quoted above. One says you agree to support which seems to suggest your name and info would/could be used in association with other actions, the other says the info will not be shared. Were I an owner at THAT resort looking to have the inside scoop, I'd have great reservations signing up with those conflicts and it seems from the info above, I'm not the only one. Also requiring concerned members to agree to your position up front would seem extremely questionable at best, like posting a poll with only one choice.


 
you are signing up so we can get in touch with you if we need to for any action we may want to take.  What folks seem to have a problem with, the ones on this thread, is giving any information to sign up and get access to the site. We are not going to change that, if you want to have access to the information you need to register.  If you are still uncomfortable then this is not the site for you.  I mean no disrespect and I understand people have concern giving information out, I also understand that if we need to contact them, then we need the information.  We have considered opening up a guest function but have decided against it.  If you are an owner and you are interested you should contact Allan and discuss your opinions with him.

Have a great day.


----------



## m61376

lovearuba said:


> you are signing up so we can get in touch with you if we need to for any action we may want to take.  What folks seem to have a problem with, the ones on this thread, is giving any information to sign up and get access to the site. We are not going to change that, if you want to have access to the information you need to register.  If you are still uncomfortable then this is not the site for you.  I mean no disrespect and I understand people have concern giving information out, I also understand that if we need to contact them, then we need the information.  We have considered opening up a guest function but have decided against it.  If you are an owner and you are interested you should contact Allan and discuss your opinions with him.
> 
> Have a great day.



I think you should re-consider what Dean is saying. I don't think giving the site administrators your contact info. is the issue, but it appears to be ambiguous as to how precisely that contact issue will be used. If, as you imply, it will only be used to notify owners of any future action and to give them the option of supporting it that's one thing, but as I read it (and I surmise others have) joining and giving the info. as it stands means you "support the cause." I think by not clarifying things you are alienating many potential members who don't want their info. being attached to any document unless they approve of that specific document/action.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> ... What folks seem to have a problem with, the ones on this thread, is giving any information to sign up and get access to the site. ...



Hmmm, I don't know where you get that from.  None of us has said that owner contact information _shouldn't_ be collected at that site.  What we're questioning is how the owners' contact information will be used, because there are completely contradictory statements about that on the home page and in the disclaimer that comes up when you click on "register."

These two statements do not mean the same thing, and neither can they be reasonably interpreted to mean what you've said in your last few posts:



> ... It will be kept strictly confidential and *will not be sold, shared or otherwise disclosed* to any other party.





> ... It may be used to provide Marriott Vacation Club International a listing of owners ...



And it isn't so much that I "have a problem with" the compilation of owners' information or the contradiction in the two statements.  It's just crossed my mind that if the list of owners compiled on the site is submitted to MVCI/the MAOC BOD in order to satisfy a bylaw requirement, the first line of defense will probably be that a recognized electronic signature software has not been utilized to verify the owners' consent.  The second will be that there is enough of a contradiction that owners might not have a reasonable expectation of how their contact information is being used.


----------



## SueDonJ

m61376 said:


> ... If, in fact, no one's name will be attached to any petition, document, etc., unless they give explicit permission to sign any such document, and that nothing will transpire by virtue of their joining the site other than to be able to garner information and to give the site administrators a way to contact owners, then you might consider rewording the home page of the website to avoid confusion. ...





lovearuba said:


> I will be happy to pass this recommendation along. Its not unreasonable.



Hmmmm.  It appears there is something new on the home page today:


> *Registering for this website does not authorize the usage of your name to any petition, document, etc., unless you provide your explicit permission to use it.  If your consent is needed you will be contacted.*



Nice work, m.


----------



## m61376

SueDonJ said:


> Hmmmm.  It appears there is something new on the home page today:
> 
> 
> Nice work, m.



Thanks


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> you are signing up so we can get in touch with you if we need to for any action we may want to take.  What folks seem to have a problem with, the ones on this thread, is giving any information to sign up and get access to the site. We are not going to change that, if you want to have access to the information you need to register.  If you are still uncomfortable then this is not the site for you.  I mean no disrespect and I understand people have concern giving information out, I also understand that if we need to contact them, then we need the information.  We have considered opening up a guest function but have decided against it.  If you are an owner and you are interested you should contact Allan and discuss your opinions with him.
> 
> Have a great day.


Collecting information and getting a forum to share info with the owners is what you should be doing, several of us suggested it long ago.  Asking for an attestation of support as part of the sign up process is going far beyond collecting info so you can communicate if need be.  Hopefully this was not an intended consequence given the change I see referenced but it is what was being insisted upon.  Was the sign on portion agreeing that you support the cause also changed?


----------



## SueDonJ

Dean said:


> Collecting information and getting a forum to share info with the owners is what you should be doing, several of us suggested it long ago.  Asking for an attestation of support as part of the sign up process is going far beyond collecting info so you can communicate if need be.  Hopefully this was not an intended consequence given the change I see referenced but it is what was being insisted upon.  Was the sign on portion agreeing that you support the cause also changed?



Doesn't appear to be changed, Dean - this is from the Disclaimer on the registration page:


> ... Website Rules The information contained in this website is for Marriott Aruba Ocean Club owners only. By completing your registration process and accepting these terms, you are agreeing that you are an owner at this resort. You are also agreeing that you support efforts to gain more transparency on the ASSOCIATION (Aruba Ocean Club Association Board). If you decide at any time that you no longer support this cause you can delete your account by using the home page and following the prompts to delete your account. ...


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Doesn't appear to be changed, Dean - this is from the Disclaimer on the registration page:



And the problem is-------?????

I can start a site inviting only blue eyed people who believe the sky is blue.
They have a right to opt out once they believe the sky is another color or opt out for any reason.
My site,my rules.
If I do not want brown eyed people on my site I do not have to accept them.If I do not want blue eyed people that think the sky is a color other than blue,I do not have to accept them.
We are all grown ups and can either sign up or not without having to dissect the issue to death.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> And the problem is-------?????
> 
> I can start a site inviting only blue eyed people who believe the sky is blue.
> They have a right to opt out once they believe the sky is another color or opt out for any reason.
> My site,my rules.
> If I do not want brown eyed people on my site I do not have to accept them.If I do not want blue eyed people that think the sky is a color other than blue,I do not have to accept them.
> We are all grown ups and can either sign up or not without having to dissect the issue to death.



The "problem" as I see it is that any owners who want to join the site in order to gain access to whatever information is there that will enable them to determine if they agree with the cause, are forced by the Disclaimer and Privacy Policy to support the cause before they know what information might be available or what that support entails.  The contradictory statements contained on the website's home and registration pages, and here on TUG in posts about the website from owners who have joined, make it all very confusing for the folks you're trying to reach.  That's all.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> The "problem" as I see it is that any owners who want to join the site in order to gain access to whatever information is there that will enable them to determine if they agree with the cause, are forced by the Disclaimer and Privacy Policy to support the cause before they know what information might be available or what that support entails.  The contradictory statements contained on the website's home and registration pages, and here on TUG in posts about the website from owners who have joined, make it all very confusing for the folks you're trying to reach.  That's all.



The site also states that anyone with questions can call or email with questions prior to signing up to AVOID confusion.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> The site also states that anyone with questions can call or email with questions prior to signing up to AVOID confusion.



That's true.  But what they'll hear is Mark or Allen's version of what's transpired at their resort, as opposed to an unbiased, unembellished "just the facts, ma'am" accounting.

You're all entirely correct that it's your website and you're entitled to do with it whatever you choose.  That's all fine and dandy, if your intent is to be able to discuss your resort's issues without influence and dissent from people who do not own there.  But I think that the intent of the website is also to garner support and increase the numbers of MAOC owners who have not joined in the efforts to this point, and I think that the purpose of including the link to the website in posts here on TUG is to convince those owners who may stumble upon this humongous thread through a google search or something similar to join the efforts.  IMO, both of those intents are thwarted by the contradictory statements and the demand for support prior to registration, all of which is contained on the website's home and registration pages and in posts here on TUG.

As well, I believe that the agreement of support as a prerequisite for registration on the website is an attempt to satisfy in advance any owner inclusion requirement(s) that Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD may demand in any future legal proceeding.  But I think that the lack of an electronic signature software and the contradictory registration statements on the website are not enough to satisfy any such demands.


----------



## modoaruba

That post represents statements issued by the board without the ability of owners being able to openly debate any issues.It is what it is.
Why don't you and others who are downplaying the dissention group's site as being faulty find fault with the board's site as having it's own agenda?
I am not saying one group is right and the other wrong in their views.It is clear that both groups have a mission.One is trying to preserve the status quo,the other trying to challenge it.
Each has a right to be able to address the issues as they see fit is all I am saying.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> That post represents statements issued by the board without the ability of owners being able to openly debate any issues.It is what it is.
> Why don't you and others who are downplaying the dissention group's site as being faulty find fault with the board's site as having it's own agenda?
> I am not saying one group is right and the other wrong in their views.It is clear that both groups have a mission.One is trying to preserve the status quo,the other trying to challenge it.
> Each has a right to be able to address the issues as they see fit is all I am saying.



I don't have any problem with either MVCI/the MAOC BOD or this minority group having their own agenda - it's why each expects that their agenda is correct that interests me.

Based on the myriad communications issued by MVCI/the MAOC BOD including the one that David reprinted above, it's obvious that MVCI/the MAOC BOD believes that their positions are supported by the governing documents of MAOC and/or Aruban law.  If this dissenting group can furnish proof of falsehoods or cite legal objections to what's been related in any of the communications, then they'll be able to discount that agenda.

Conversely, based on the information and opinions that have been related throughout this thread for the last year by members of this minority ownership group, it appears that their agenda is to circumvent the governing documents of MAOC and/or the legal requirements to challenge those documents, in order to further their aim of a resort which runs in some ways contrary to the brand standard of an MVCI resort (i.e. a "transparent" BOD which allows personal contact with members, resort refurbishment not quite up to par in an effort to save costs, fees collected from MVCI in addition to those imposed by its "B" share ownership for leased space, etc.)  So far they've not been able to do so; it remains to be seen whether they will achieve success in the future.


----------



## lovearuba

*HMM*



SueDonJ said:


> I don't have any problem with either MVCI/the MAOC BOD or this minority group having their own agenda - it's why each expects that their agenda is correct that interests me.
> 
> Based on the myriad communications issued by MVCI/the MAOC BOD including the one that David reprinted above, it's obvious that MVCI/the MAOC BOD believes that their positions are supported by the governing documents of MAOC and/or Aruban law. If this dissenting group can furnish proof of falsehoods or cite legal objections to what's been related in any of the communications, then they'll be able to discount that agenda.
> 
> Conversely, based on the information and opinions that have been related throughout this thread for the last year by members of this minority ownership group, it appears that their agenda is to circumvent the governing documents of MAOC and/or the legal requirements to challenge those documents, in order to further their aim of a resort which runs in some ways contrary to the brand standard of an MVCI resort (i.e. a "transparent" BOD which allows personal contact with members, resort refurbishment not quite up to par in an effort to save costs, fees collected from MVCI in addition to those imposed by its "B" share ownership for leased space, etc.) So far they've not been able to do so; it remains to be seen whether they will achieve success in the future.


 
I am so happy to see the thread remains alive.  Have we made the record yet or is it the the threads related to RCI or Starwoods concerns with timeshares, just curious??


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> And the problem is-------?????
> 
> I can start a site inviting only blue eyed people who believe the sky is blue.
> They have a right to opt out once they believe the sky is another color or opt out for any reason.
> My site,my rules.
> If I do not want brown eyed people on my site I do not have to accept them.If I do not want blue eyed people that think the sky is a color other than blue,I do not have to accept them.
> We are all grown ups and can either sign up or not without having to dissect the issue to death.


No argument on the ability to do so, it's the appropriateness and reasonableness of such an act that I am responding to.  It is, IMO, unreasonable to require such members to agree with you as part of the ability to share information.  Simply being an owner at that resort and wishing to be better informed should be enough to be included with any reasonable group.


----------



## Luckybee

Hello all

As an aside Im more curious about who Tug's "davidberg" is ? Given that he's come on here and made false accusations against "lovearuba" (who Ive spoken with and she is female  ) and Allen Cohen, who I have also spoken with and he's male ) , and I've further been told that there is a real David Berg who is an owner and is none to happy that this individual is actually using his name falsely, I cant help but wonder how this person knew there was a David Berg who was actually an owner(and supportive of the efforts of the concerned owners group) unless they had access to an owners list somehow? Im also curious that if what I have indicated is correct(and I say this because what I have been told is heresay at this point and it would be for others to follow up on), what position would TUG take if it turns out that someone is actually commiting the crime of personation(or impersonation depending upon the law in various locales). It is one thing to make up a name and pretend to be someone your not, and quite another to commit what in many places is a criminal offence and pretend to be a person who does in fact exsist .


----------



## lovearuba

*what about green eyes*



Dean said:


> No argument on the ability to do so, it's the appropriateness and reasonableness of such an act that I am responding to. It is, IMO, unreasonable to require such members to agree with you as part of the ability to share information. Simply being an owner at that resort and wishing to be better informed should be enough to be included with any reasonable group.


 
The issue is that if folks are not concerned with whats happened with the board and issues around transparency, they should not try to sign up. These folks may be happy with the status quo and that is their right. The site is for "concerned" members.  It is not "simply" for all owners wishing to get information, the website title should make that clear and the opening page should also be enough to make an owner determine if they are interested. Again, an owner can register, read through the documents, visit the forum and then decide its not something they want to be involved in. They can delete their account.  By the way what does IMO mean?


----------



## Dean

Luckybee said:


> Hello all
> 
> As an aside Im more curious about who Tug's "davidberg" is ? Given that he's come on here and made false accusations against "lovearuba" (who Ive spoken with and she is female  ) and Allen Cohen, who I have also spoken with and he's male ) , and I've further been told that there is a real David Berg who is an owner and is none to happy that this individual is actually using his name falsely, I cant help but wonder how this person knew there was a David Berg who was actually an owner(and supportive of the efforts of the concerned owners group) unless they had access to an owners list somehow? Im also curious that if what I have indicated is correct(and I say this because what I have been told is heresay at this point and it would be for others to follow up on), what position would TUG take if it turns out that someone is actually commiting the crime of personation(or impersonation depending upon the law in various locales). It is one thing to make up a name and pretend to be someone your not, and quite another to commit what in many places is a criminal offence and pretend to be a person who does in fact exsist .


I would seriously doubt any laws have been broken by using a sign on that happens to be someone's name, whether it's them or not.  It would certainly be in bad taste and may or may not be against the rules for TUG depending on the specifics.  I'm sure there are many on TUG who have more than one sign on for various reasons.  You may want to inquire of the moderators directly to ask they look to see if any TUG rules have been broken.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> The issue is that if folks are not concerned with whats happened with the board and issues around transparency, they should not try to sign up. These folks may be happy with the status quo and that is their right. The site is for "concerned" members.  It is not "simply" for all owners wishing to get information, the website title should make that clear and the opening page should also be enough to make an owner determine if they are interested. Again, an owner can register, read through the documents, visit the forum and then decide its not something they want to be involved in. They can delete their account.  By the way what does IMO mean?


IMO is "in my opinion".  One can be concerned without agreeing with you in all areas.  As I stated, I was addressing the question of reasonableness but I think you've answered that question as well.


----------



## Luckybee

Dean said:


> I would seriously doubt any laws have been broken by using a sign on that happens to be someone's name, whether it's them or not.  It would certainly be in bad taste and may or may not be against the rules for TUG depending on the specifics.  I'm sure there are many on TUG who have more than one sign on for various reasons.  You may want to inquire of the moderators directly to ask they look to see if any TUG rules have been broken.



Dont know about the U.S but there has been at least one person prosecuted in Canada for the very example I've given , that is, using someone else's name participating on a public forum...but not for me to decide what to do...Im sure someone else who is reading here will pass the info on to the real David Berg !


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> I don't have any problem with either MVCI/the MAOC BOD or this minority group having their own agenda - it's why each expects that their agenda is correct that interests me.
> 
> Based on the myriad communications issued by MVCI/the MAOC BOD including the one that David reprinted above, it's obvious that MVCI/the MAOC BOD believes that their positions are supported by the governing documents of MAOC and/or Aruban law.  If this dissenting group can furnish proof of falsehoods or cite legal objections to what's been related in any of the communications, then they'll be able to discount that agenda.
> 
> Conversely, based on the information and opinions that have been related throughout this thread for the last year by members of this minority ownership group, it appears that their agenda is to circumvent the governing documents of MAOC and/or the legal requirements to challenge those documents, in order to further their aim of a resort which runs in some ways contrary to the brand standard of an MVCI resort (i.e. a "transparent" BOD which allows personal contact with members, resort refurbishment not quite up to par in an effort to save costs, fees collected from MVCI in addition to those imposed by its "B" share ownership for leased space, etc.)  So far they've not been able to do so; it remains to be seen whether they will achieve success in the future.



I do not agree when you state the the "minority" group is trying to do away or harm the relationship of the Marriott brand.On the contrary,I believe that the Marriott brand is very important to all.
The issue is honesty and transparancy by Marriott and the board to the owners.
It's posts like yours that causes embattlements to continue and cause a division between the owners(a house divided---).Very clever.IMO!There,I get to use it now.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> As an aside Im more curious ... I cant help but wonder how this person knew there was a David Berg who was actually an owner(and supportive of the efforts of the concerned owners group) unless they had access to an owners list somehow? ...



Coincidentally, that's similar to another thought I had while reading the Disclaimer on the registration page of that website.  This is the quote:


> Administrator’s Role: The role of the administrator is to review registration requests and to grant access to the site based on the information you provide on your registration form.



What I wonder is, does the Administrator have access to the MAOC ownership list in order to verify the information provided by the folks who try to register?  And if so, how did s/he get access to it and why can't it be used for contacting the overall membership?  If not, does the Administrator "grant access" to anyone and everyone whose unverifiable registration information does not include glaring inconsistencies (such as  a claim of a 4BR Penthouse, I guess) or cause identity problems (such as that occurring between the davidbergs here?)

Speaking of the davidbergs, Dean has the proper solution.  The real David Berg should contact a TUG moderator with his concerns.  I would if someone showed up using my name - wouldn't anyone?


----------



## modoaruba

*The spear chucking continues*

I would think that the moderator has access to the list of owners which was obtained legally.
By the way,I always thought before Dean made it clear that IMO meant Ignorant Marriott Owner Sorry , Couldn't help that one.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> I do not agree when you state the the "minority" group is trying to do away or harm the relationship of the Marriott brand.On the contrary,I believe that the Marriott brand is very important to all.
> The issue is honesty and transparancy by Marriott and the board to the owners.



We'll forever disagree about these things, Modo, but I think we're similar in that we can each respect the other's difference of opinion.



modoaruba said:


> It's posts like yours that causes embattlements to continue and cause a division between the owners(a house divided---).Very clever.IMO!There,I get to use it now.



I'm not looking for embattlements or divided houses, Modo - I'm just doing what everyone else in this thread is doing.  That is, writing down my opinions about what's happened at your resort and the steps this group and Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD have taken during the process.  If there's a division between owners, it's not due to any one person's stated opinion but rather it's because there are extreme differences of opinion and the possibility exists for any individual owner to dissect the available information from all sources in order to form his/her own opinion.  That's a good thing, whether or not an owner is more in agreement with you and those who think like you or with me and those who think like me.  Dissent isn't unhealthy, stifling opinions is.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> By the way,I always thought before Dean made it clear that IMO meant Ignorant Marriott Owner Sorry , Couldn't help that one.


Depends on which resort you own and how much you paid I guess.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> I would think that the moderator has access to the list of owners which was obtained legally. ...



Really?  That would contradict Marksue's recent post that it was necessary to file a lawsuit to gain access to the ownership list.  If it can be (and was) obtained legally, why the lawsuit necessity?  If it can't be obtained without a lawsuit (and wasn't,) how is the Moderator verifying the ownership information of those website registrations?


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Really?  That would contradict Marksue's recent post that it was necessary to file a lawsuit to gain access to the ownership list.  If it can be (and was) obtained legally, why the lawsuit necessity?  If it can't be obtained without a lawsuit (and wasn't,) how is the Moderator verifying the ownership information of those website registrations?



Just making an educated guess that some form of confirmation is available.
You have to ask the moderator for specifics. I am not privi to it nor do I care.
To me that's not the issue.


----------



## modoaruba

Dean said:


> Depends on which resort you own and how much you paid I guess.



It seems that since I own at the "chosen" resort I was, admittedly, "IMO"
when I bought.
Since I bought over 10 years ago and have been using it every year,and have been learning about the ins and outs,I graduated to or headed for an "EMO".An Educated Marriott Owner.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> It seems that since I own at the "chosen" resort I was, admittedly, "IMO"
> when I bought.
> Since I bought over 10 years ago and have been using it every year,and have been learning about the ins and outs,I graduated to or headed for an "EMO".An Educated Marriott Owner.


LOL, do we get a certificate with that education?


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> Just making an educated guess that some form of confirmation is available.
> You have to ask the moderator for specifics. I am not privi to it nor do I care.
> To me that's not the issue.



Well, if the Administrator wants to offer an answer here I'm sure it will be appreciated, but I'm guessing that it won't be made available to those who are not eligible to register at the website (if it's made available at all.)

The reason the thought occurred to me in the first place was that the possibility that an MAOC owners list is available to the Administrator of the website conflicted with Marksue's recent post that is linked above.  But the continuation of the thought is that if I was going to be involved in a group whose stated aim is to challenge the legality of actions that Marriott/MVCI/my resorts' BOD have taken, I would want to be certain that the figureheads of that group are not doing anything illegal themselves.   That old "guilty by association" can bite if a person's not careful.


----------



## modoaruba

Dean said:


> LOL, do we get a certificate with that education?



No,just an extra fee.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Well, if the Administrator wants to offer an answer here I'm sure it will be appreciated, but I'm guessing that it won't be made available to those who are not eligible to register at the website (if it's made available at all.)
> 
> The reason the thought occurred to me in the first place was that the possibility that an MAOC owners list is available to the Administrator of the website conflicted with Marksue's recent post that is linked above.  But the continuation of the thought is that if I was going to be involved in a group whose stated aim is to challenge the legality of actions that Marriott/MVCI/my resorts' BOD have taken, I would want to be certain that the figureheads of that group are not doing anything illegal themselves.   That old "guilty by association" can bite if a person's not careful.



Very scary!!! Holloween is in 2 days.


----------



## lovearuba

*I'm not scared*



modoaruba said:


> Very scary!!! Holloween is in 2 days.


 
People should be no more worried about signing up for tug signing up for the concerned owners site. These threats are exactly the methods that Marriott uses to scare people from joining the cause and from buying resale.   Wish I had a ghost icon to add to the end of this.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Hello all
> 
> As an aside Im more curious about who Tug's "davidberg" is ? Given that he's come on here and made false accusations against "lovearuba" (who Ive spoken with and she is female  ) and Allen Cohen, who I have also spoken with and he's male ) , and I've further been told that there is a real David Berg who is an owner and is none to happy that this individual is actually using his name falsely, I cant help but wonder how this person knew there was a David Berg who was actually an owner(and supportive of the efforts of the concerned owners group) unless they had access to an owners list somehow? Im also curious that if what I have indicated is correct(and I say this because what I have been told is heresay at this point and it would be for others to follow up on), what position would TUG take if it turns out that someone is actually commiting the crime of personation(or impersonation depending upon the law in various locales). It is one thing to make up a name and pretend to be someone your not, and quite another to commit what in many places is a criminal offence and pretend to be a person who does in fact exsist .



Why does it seem like there always is one of two reoccurring themes when someone does not agree with the crusade:

1) If they might be an owner, they must be a mole, agent of the board, or Marriott employee
2) If they do not own, they are just stirring up trouble or like to debate 

Why cannot it just be reasonable people who see the facts differently then you do. 

Why always the need to marginalize other posters?


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Very scary!!! Holloween is in 2 days.



Excellent example of my previous point. Lets mock the opinion rather than responding to it. And you wonder why so much attention is focused on questioning the tactics the crusaders use.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> Excellent example of my previous point. Lets mock the opinion rather than responding to it. And you wonder why so much attention is focused on questioning the tactics the crusaders use.



Hey Eric,I was wondering when you'd join in.
Whassup?
Anyway,mocking the mockery is fair play.
One side is trying to diffuse the group from amassing while the group is trying to pull together without outside distractions.
Instead of going head to head which will get everyone,no matter what side you're on,nowhere,utilization of this thread should suffice to get points across and debates.
Let the group do it's thing.Who cares?
Too much importance is displaced on the wrong things.
I am not against debate but I am against those who do not wish to see the group have their own site.Very weird to me.This subject of having their own site should not even be an issue.
If I want to advertise on this board that I want to start my own site and those that agree with me can join,you know what I would tell the opposition.
But I'm to much of a gentleman.IMO!


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> Why does it seem like there always is one of two reoccurring themes when someone does not agree with the crusade:
> 
> 1) If they might be an owner, they must be a mole, agent of the board, or Marriott employee
> 2) If they do not own, they are just stirring up trouble or like to debate
> 
> Why cannot it just be reasonable people who see the facts differently then you do.
> 
> Why always the need to marginalize other posters?



It isnt a matter of marginalizing anyone Eric. I get concerned when there is someone who is purporting to be an owner who isnt. Or when someone is purporting to be someone who they are not. What you may not be aware of is that there is a David Berg who is an owner who is as I understand it quite concerned by the use of his name both on this board and elsewhere by someone who purports to be him. My comments have nothing to do whatsoever with the "side" anyone is on and I'm sorry if you cant understand the concerns that I was speaking to. "It isnt a matter of "reasonable" people seeing anything.

On the website issues I have no comment to make here other than to say a website has been started by members of the concerned owners group. It is their website...they can choose who to accept and who to reject. From reading these posts the criteria seems clear.


----------



## timeos2

*Opportunity wasted it seems*

I'm just waiting for some concrete, factual news that anything the complaining group has done has actually resulted in a change they wished to see. So far they are batting zero and it doesn't look like it will be changing based on the ongoing petty rants and lack of significant, enforceable action. It would seem that everything Marriott has asked for or imposed has been implemented and the original plans/payout/etc are moving ahead exactly as they had been approved, over a year ago now. The chances of ever reversing the actions, getting more money for items now considered to be resolved or refunding money billed & paid also would seem to be close to zero. Owners have swallowed the cost and moved on.  I'd say the "crusade" fell short and going forward the interest is minor at best. The time to get the owners up in arms and active came and went.  

There may have been a basis for some changes but over reaching probably killed any chance they originally had.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Hey Eric,I was wondering when you'd join in.
> Whassup?
> Anyway,mocking the mockery is fair play.
> One side is trying to diffuse the group from amassing while the group is trying to pull together without outside distractions.
> Instead of going head to head which will get everyone,no matter what side you're on,nowhere,utilization of this thread should suffice to get points across and debates.
> Let the group do it's thing.Who cares?
> Too much importance is displaced on the wrong things.
> I am not against debate but I am against those who do not wish to see the group have their own site.Very weird to me.This subject of having their own site should not even be an issue.
> If I want to advertise on this board that I want to start my own site and those that agree with me can join,you know what I would tell the opposition.
> But I'm to much of a gentleman.IMO!



I made this point a few days ago, but apparently you skipped over it, so let me make it again.

*Where exactly has it been suggested that the group should not have their own site?*

I just went back and skimmed over the past couple of pages again. I do not see any significant posts asking that question. In fact, you seem to mention it more frequently than anyone.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> It isnt a matter of marginalizing anyone Eric. I get concerned when there is someone who is purporting to be an owner who isnt. Or when someone is purporting to be someone who they are not. What you may not be aware of is that there is a David Berg who is an owner who is as I understand it quite concerned by the use of his name both on this board and elsewhere by someone who purports to be him. My comments have nothing to do whatsoever with the "side" anyone is on and I'm sorry if you cant understand the concerns that I was speaking to. "It isnt a matter of "reasonable" people seeing anything.



People can have the same name. Is that true?

You do not know if the poster is named Dave Berg. Is that true?

You do not know if the poster is the Dave Berg who is an owner. Is that true?

There are no US or Canada laws that cover using creating a UserID on a  internet forum. Is that true?


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> I made this point a few days ago, but apparently you skipped over it, so let me make it again.
> 
> *Where exactly has it been suggested that the group should not have their own site?*
> 
> I just went back and skimmed over the past couple of pages again. I do not see any significant posts asking that question. In fact, you seem to mention it more frequently than anyone.



The point I am making is not that someone came outright and stated such,it's by inference of posts as in Sue's where there are questions regarding how one is to get onto the site.
It seems there are a few postings that try to deligitimize the site by reference to legalities,scare tactics and such.So I interpret those posts as antagonistic for what ever reason is behind them.
Personaly,I see that I am one of a very few that shares this view or willing to respond and that's OK.
I am offering an opinion not based on sides but based on principle.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> The point I am making is not that someone came outright and stated such,it's by inference of posts as in Sue's where there are questions regarding how one is to get onto the site.
> It seems there are a few postings that try to deligitimize the site by reference to legalities,scare tactics and such.So I interpret those posts as antagonistic for what ever reason is behind them.
> Personaly,I see that I am one of a very few that shares this view or willing to respond and that's OK.
> I am offering an opinion not based on sides but based on principle.



As one that is on the "other side", I do not think anyone has contested that they have a right to set-up their own site. 

And the posts are just to alert other members of some of the potential pitfalls given the history of the crusaders. Clearly one reason for setting it up, is to avoid exposing members to the entire story, and to censor out unfavorable opinions. Not exactly how I would choose to conduct an owner advocacy campaign, but certainly their right.

But one of the complaints of the crusaders is that they are being effectively censored by being denied access to the owners list.

So why would a group that is fighting against censorship, engage in it on their site? That would seem to be a disconnect. And that is all censorship is, finding a way to silence the opinion you do not agree with. 

In that context are the crusaders any different than the AOC board?


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> As one that is on the "other side", I do not think anyone has contested that they have a right to set-up their own site.
> 
> And the posts are just to alert other members of some of the potential pitfalls given the history of the crusaders. Clearly one reason for setting it up, is to avoid exposing members to the entire story, and to censor out unfavorable opinions. Not exactly how I would choose to conduct an owner advocacy campaign, but certainly their right.
> 
> But one of the complaints of the crusaders is that they are being effectively censored by being denied access to the owners list.
> 
> So why would a group that is fighting against censorship, engage in it on their site? That would seem to be a disconnect. And that is all censorship is, finding a way to silence the opinion you do not agree with.
> 
> In that context are the crusaders any different than the AOC board?



I understand your views but the issue at hand as I see it is not how or why or whatever reason is behind the group's site.
I am not conducting a group analysis.
But sometimes you have to get a group huddle to work more effectively. I
bet that the Board did so inorder to come out with their response as we saw in a previous post.I am not condemning them for it.That's what they had to do.No one on this thread had to influence them to come out with their reply nor should those opposing the group's site impose on whatever the group's intention is.
This thread is a free for all.Sometimes right on and sometimes right out of there.
Again,I am speaking of principle for the right to exist without condemnation which I am getting through inference.
It has nothing to do with opposing views and which is right or wrong.
Live and let live.


----------



## lovearuba

*responses*



modoaruba said:


> The point I am making is not that someone came outright and stated such,it's by inference of posts as in Sue's where there are questions regarding how one is to get onto the site.
> It seems there are a few postings that try to deligitimize the site by reference to legalities,scare tactics and such.So I interpret those posts as antagonistic for what ever reason is behind them.
> Personaly,I see that I am one of a very few that shares this view or willing to respond and that's OK.
> I am offering an opinion not based on sides but based on principle.


 
I respond periodically to keep this thread alive and speak to owners. When the conversation focuses on challenging our actions, I refrain as much as possible because its not worth it.  I respect people having a right to their own opinion I dont respect people who try to belittle the cause with statements indicating the disenting group, the crusaders and all of that nonsense.  I do appreciate your opinions and value them.  I also appreciate this thread which is increasing the number of registrations on the site.  Yeah tug.:whoopie:


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> No,just an extra fee.


Not for me, quite the contrary.



modoaruba said:


> Hey Eric,I was wondering when you'd join in.
> Whassup?
> Anyway,mocking the mockery is fair play.
> One side is trying to diffuse the group from amassing while the group is trying to pull together without outside distractions.
> Instead of going head to head which will get everyone,no matter what side you're on,nowhere,utilization of this thread should suffice to get points across and debates.
> Let the group do it's thing.Who cares?
> Too much importance is displaced on the wrong things.
> I am not against debate but I am against those who do not wish to see the group have their own site.Very weird to me.This subject of having their own site should not even be an issue.
> If I want to advertise on this board that I want to start my own site and those that agree with me can join,you know what I would tell the opposition.
> But I'm to much of a gentleman.IMO!


Eric is correct that those that aren't marching behind the 2 or 3 people in charge are attacked, whether they be owners or not.  We've already heard how at least some of the names on the original petition were obtained under false pretenses.  We also have a site supposedly for concerned owners where concerned owners aren't welcome if they don't agree in writing up front and provide far more personal information than I personally would be comfortable providing.  IMO, the website URL does not tell the story as was mentioned above.  

At this point this is becoming comical.  I do hope it works out for the owners there but as I've predicted, my suspicion is that the best owners will actually come out of this is a break even and it's not unlikely this move will cost owners far more in the long run than the SA but we shall see.  

As for the goal for more transparency, I stated early on this is not a measurable issue, it is subjective and as such there is no real end in sight. 



modoaruba said:


> The point I am making is not that someone came outright and stated such,it's by inference of posts as in Sue's where there are questions regarding how one is to get onto the site.
> It seems there are a few postings that try to deligitimize the site by reference to legalities,scare tactics and such.So I interpret those posts as antagonistic for what ever reason is behind them.
> Personaly,I see that I am one of a very few that shares this view or willing to respond and that's OK.
> I am offering an opinion not based on sides but based on principle.


I don't recall anything along those lines but this is a long thread so my memory could be failing.  I recall that I suggested several times that there was risk esp. for Allan given his probable breech of his BOD oath, that certainly was not a scare tactic but I consider it to be both truthful and accurate.  That he's willing to put himself out there is either brave or foolish, time will tell which.  There is similar but less risk to others spearheading the group but IF this ends up costing the owners there in one way or another whether it be money wise or loss of Marriott management, there is significant risk to certain principles IMO.  Again, no threat, just my opinion and analysis of the situation at hand.


----------



## modoaruba

Dean said:


> Not for me, quite the contrary.
> 
> Eric is correct that those that aren't marching behind the 2 or 3 people in charge are attacked, whether they be owners or not.  We've already heard how at least some of the names on the original petition were obtained under false pretenses.  We also have a site supposedly for concerned owners where concerned owners aren't welcome if they don't agree in writing up front and provide far more personal information than I personally would be comfortable providing.  IMO, the website URL does not tell the story as was mentioned above.
> 
> At this point this is becoming comical.  I do hope it works out for the owners there but as I've predicted, my suspicion is that the best owners will actually come out of this is a break even and it's not unlikely this move will cost owners far more in the long run than the SA but we shall see.
> 
> As for the goal for more transparency, I stated early on this is not a measurable issue, it is subjective and as such there is no real end in sight.
> 
> I don't recall anything along those lines but this is a long thread so my memory could be failing.  I recall that I suggested several times that there was risk esp. for Allan given his probable breech of his BOD oath, that certainly was not a scare tactic but I consider it to be both truthful and accurate.  That he's willing to put himself out there is either brave or foolish, time will tell which.  There is similar but less risk to others spearheading the group but IF this ends up costing the owners there in one way or another whether it be money wise or loss of Marriott management, there is significant risk to certain principles IMO.  Again, no threat, just my opinion and analysis of the situation at hand.



Dean 
I appreciate your view.
There has been some over zealous posts on both sides which obviously serve no purpose.
I am sure the group has quite a following due to taking sides or just out of curiosity and this thread helps it along even through the negatives.
Time will tell.
Lets hope for the best for ALL.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> Dean
> I appreciate your view.
> There has been some over zealous posts on both sides which obviously serve no purpose.
> I am sure the group has quite a following due to taking sides or just out of curiosity and this thread helps it along even through the negatives.
> Time will tell.
> Lets hope for the best for ALL.


No doubt, we all want what's best for the members.  I'm not sure there has been a lot of intensity from those that are not directly affected (many of us may be indirectly) other than in response to some personal attacks and inappropriate posts from those emotionally involved such as the idea that one shouldn't post on this thread if they didn't own there.  IMO, much of the intensity and dissension has been from those that simply couldn't accept that some didn't take their side and view as gospel, it seems some took skepticism and an open mind as a personal attack on their honesty and integrity.


----------



## Luckybee

Dean said:


> No doubt, we all want what's best for the members.  I'm not sure there has been a lot of intensity from those that are not directly affected (many of us may be indirectly) other than in response to some personal attacks and inappropriate posts from those emotionally involved such as the idea that one shouldn't post on this thread if they didn't own there.  IMO, much of the intensity and dissension has been from those that simply couldn't accept that some didn't take their side and view as gospel, it seems some took skepticism and an open mind as a personal attack on their honesty and integrity.



Some of us still feel that this topic is better left to owners....and isnt it wonderful that those who feel that way now have a site where they can do just that 

Imho much of the intensity has come from those of us who feel that it really has nothing to do with non owners....and those of you who feel otherwise....now we dont have to deal with any of that since as I understand from the moderator of the site she is intending to be quite vigilant in keeping out non owners. I understand she already has


----------



## Dean

Luckybee said:


> Some of us still feel that this topic is better left to owners....and isnt it wonderful that those who feel that way now have a site where they can do just that
> 
> Imho much of the intensity has come from those of us who feel that it really has nothing to do with non owners....and those of you who feel otherwise....now we dont have to deal with any of that since as I understand from the moderator of the site she is intending to be quite vigilant in keeping out non owners. I understand she already has


A separate site is exactly where it should be for such a purpose but it's not appropriate on TUG.  I suggested it many months ago.


----------



## modoaruba

Dean said:


> A separate site is exactly where it should be for such a purpose but it's not appropriate on TUG.  I suggested it many months ago.



Not appropriate on TUG???
Anyone who owns or is thinking of buying a time share should at least have a heads up.
Dean,don't you have a stake in the TS market since you own quite a few and trying to rent or trying to sell some?
Any negative posts are directly antagonistic to your efforts.NO???
I do not think that your motives of your posts are truely without prejudice.IMO!!!


----------



## Luckybee

Dean said:


> Not for me, quite the contrary.
> 
> Eric is correct that those that aren't marching behind the 2 or 3 people in charge are attacked, whether they be owners or not.





Btw...where in heavens name did you ever get the idea there were 2 or 3 people "in charge"....lol....you dont have to answer ...it was a rhetorical question in reference to your quote. I just picked up on it now and knew there were others who would find it as amusing as I did so I had to highlight it for that reason !  Lovearuba....ty ty ty for developing the owners site. It's post like this that are soooooooo off base that proves how much we needed it.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> Not appropriate on TUG???
> Anyone who owns or is thinking of buying a time share should at least have a heads up.
> Dean,don't you have a stake in the TS market since you own quite a few and trying to rent or trying to sell some?
> Any negative posts are directly antagonistic to your efforts.NO???
> I do not think that your motives of your posts are truely without prejudice.IMO!!!


Not appropriate to try to limit to owners only on TUG, not the discussion in general.  I do have a couple of HH weeks for rent next summer and a HI week, I don't see this as a deterrent there, I doubt it's much of a deterrent for Aruba either if one were renting there.  I have a much large stake in the system in general with what I use. As I stated, this has the potential to affect all Marriott owners and to a degree, most timeshare owners.  There is no conflict of interest or hidden motive on my part if that's what you're suggesting.  



Luckybee said:


> Btw...where in heavens name did you ever get the idea there were 2 or 3 people "in charge"....lol....you dont have to answer ...it was a rhetorical question in reference to your quote. I just picked up on it now and knew there were others who would find it as amusing as I did so I had to highlight it for that reason !  Lovearuba....ty ty ty for developing the owners site. It's post like this that are soooooooo off base that proves how much we needed it.


It's very clear there are a handful of people running the show, 2 or 3 was more figurative than specific maybe it's 5 or 6, and there always has to be in such an effort.  Without zealot's, these type of things never proceed, rightly or wrongly so.  So yes there are a handful of people in charge whether you want to admit it or not.  If there weren't you'd have a lot more problems than you have and would not have gotten this far.  That's not to say others not in charge don't agree although it's very likely that the masses don't have exactly the same view as those in charge as to resolve and possible approaches and outcomes.


----------



## Luckybee

Dean said:


> Not appropriate to try to limit to owners only on TUG, not the discussion in general.  I do have a couple of HH weeks for rent next summer and a HI week, I don't see this as a deterrent there, I doubt it's much of a deterrent for Aruba either if one were renting there.  I have a much large stake in the system in general with what I use. As I stated, this has the potential to affect all Marriott owners and to a degree, most timeshare owners.  There is no conflict of interest or hidden motive on my part if that's what you're suggesting.
> 
> It's very clear there are a handful of people running the show, 2 or 3 was more figurative than specific maybe it's 5 or 6, and there always has to be in such an effort.  Without zealot's, these type of things never proceed, rightly or wrongly so.  So yes there are a handful of people in charge whether you want to admit it or not.  If there weren't you'd have a lot more problems than you have and would not have gotten this far.  That's not to say others not in charge don't agree although it's very likely that the masses don't have exactly the same view as those in charge as to resolve and possible approaches and outcomes.



Ok....if you say so


----------



## Eric

I have been away for a while. I am sure by now, Mark has proven Marriott hid info and had them pay LOTS of money for all the repairs plus Mark got the HOA replaced with people that HE can trust. I am also sure he got the annual dues back in order and got refunds for all the owners. Am I close ?


----------



## vincenzi

Eric said:


> I have been away fro a while. I am sure by now, Mark has proved Marriott hid info and had them pay LOTS of money for all the repairs plus Mark got the HOA replaced with people that HE can trust. I am also sure he got the annual dues back in order and gor refunds for all the owners. Am I close ?



Eric, why are you so sarcastic?


----------



## modoaruba

Eric said:


> I have been away fro a while. I am sure by now, Mark has proved Marriott hid info and had them pay LOTS of money for all the repairs plus Mark got the HOA replaced with people that HE can trust. I am also sure he got the annual dues back in order and gor refunds for all the owners. Am I close ?



Your clairvoyence is absolutely amazing.


----------



## Eric

vincenzi said:


> Eric, why are you so sarcastic?



Not enough hugs when I was younger


----------



## marksue

SueDonJ said:


> Really?  That would contradict Marksue's recent post that it was necessary to file a lawsuit to gain access to the ownership list.  If it can be (and was) obtained legally, why the lawsuit necessity?  If it can't be obtained without a lawsuit (and wasn't,) how is the Moderator verifying the ownership information of those website registrations?



The list was obtained because of the first step of the lawsuit.  It only has the Aruba address so the second step is to obtain the actual addresses of all owners so we can contact them directly, the same way Marriott contacts owners.


----------



## oldone

Hello,

I'm new to this web site and found it from a fellow owner at the Aruba Ocean Club.  I read a little of the information here but gave up because it is just far too long.  I tried to get into the other web site but I'm not giving out all the information that they're asking for (paranoid New Yorker I guess).  Can anyone summarize the information for me in a non-biased way?  I would like to see lower fees but I don't want to create a huge mess with a law suit.  The Ocean Club is looking really good since the up-dates and I can see where our money has gone and don't understand the goals of the group who started all this.  Seems like if they try to squeeze Marriott for money then our fees will only go up more than they already are.  I feel like Marriott has explained the extra charges, and i could easily see where the money went at the resort.


----------



## Luckybee

Im buying the popcorn


----------



## Eric

[From the TUG Posting rules:]



> Be Courteous
> As we read and respond to others, disagreements are inevitable. Differing points of view are welcomed, and indeed the bbs would be a dull place without them. All users are expected and required to express their disagreements civilly. Refrain from name calling and behavior lectures. Personal attacks will not be tolerated and repeated offenses could get you banned from the bbs. Lively discussion is what the board is all about, but that is no excuse for boorish behavior or bad manners. We are assumed to all be adults. If you don't like a particular thread, stop reading it!


----------



## modoaruba

oldone said:


> Hello,
> 
> I'm new to this web site and found it from a fellow owner at the Aruba Ocean Club.  I read a little of the information here but gave up because it is just far too long.  I tried to get into the other web site but I'm not giving out all the information that they're asking for (paranoid New Yorker I guess).  Can anyone summarize the information for me in a non-biased way?  I would like to see lower fees but I don't want to create a huge mess with a law suit.  The Ocean Club is looking really good since the up-dates and I can see where our money has gone and don't understand the goals of the group who started all this.  Seems like if they try to squeeze Marriott for money then our fees will only go up more than they already are.  I feel like Marriott has explained the extra charges, and i could easily see where the money went at the resort.



Read #2095 &2129 t o get the gist.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Again,I am speaking of principle for the right to exist without condemnation which I am getting through inference.



Which is a right that I agree with - except for one caveat. 

When you set forth to influence other people to join your group, then I think you have to accept that your actions will receive public comment. The cornerstone of free speech is that you have be willing to accept that others will also exercise that right to oppose you.

So if the crusaders want to form a website, and operate there without condemnation - that is all good and fine. All the more power to them.

But when they seek to use TUG to recruit other owners to join them, then I they have to accept that others will point out the pitfalls and history of the group, and how their current actions are just the electronic version of the beach clipboard.


----------



## ecwinch

oldone said:


> Hello,
> 
> I'm new to this web site and found it from a fellow owner at the Aruba Ocean Club.  I read a little of the information here but gave up because it is just far too long.  I tried to get into the other web site but I'm not giving out all the information that they're asking for (paranoid New Yorker I guess).  Can anyone summarize the information for me in a non-biased way?  I would like to see lower fees but I don't want to create a huge mess with a law suit.  The Ocean Club is looking really good since the up-dates and I can see where our money has gone and don't understand the goals of the group who started all this.  Seems like if they try to squeeze Marriott for money then our fees will only go up more than they already are.  I feel like Marriott has explained the extra charges, and i could easily see where the money went at the resort.



There is a lot of information out in these threads. I would only encourage you only to accept things that are supported by factual information and not reckless innuendo, speculation, and conjecture. Also evaluate the motives of the leadership of the group, and what they are seeking to personally gain from this crusade.

As noted post #2095 certainly offers one side of the story. The other side of the story is that a long-time and well-meaning Board President was forced to retire from the Board due to the by-laws of the Ocean Club. Toward the end of his tenure he attempted to orchestrate a by-law change that would have allowed him to remain on the board, and was thwarted.

Despite a long tenure on the board, and the fact that he personally voted for many of the "problems" that the crusaders complain about now, toward the end of his tenure he also adopted an confrontational attitude toward MVCI. One that has escalated into the current situation.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> There is a lot of information out in these threads. I would only encourage you only to accept things that are supported by factual information and not reckless innuendo, speculation, and conjecture. Also evaluate the motives of the leadership of the group, and what they are seeking to personally gain from this crusade.
> 
> As noted post #2095 certainly offers one side of the story. The other side of the story is that a long-time and well-meaning Board President was forced to retire from the Board due to the by-laws of the Ocean Club. Toward the end of his tenure he attempted to orchestrate a by-law change that would have allowed him to remain on the board, and was thwarted.
> 
> Despite a long tenure on the board, and the fact that he personally voted for many of the "problems" that the crusaders complain about now, toward the end of his tenure he also adopted an confrontational attitude toward MVCI. One that has escalated into the current situation.



Whoa!Hold on there podner.
In my post I merely gave the posts of the 2 sides without any interpretation nor speculation.Lets not put any flies in the ointment for the newbies.I'm sure they are capable of coming to their own conclusions without our wisdoms.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Whoa!Hold on there podner.
> In my post I merely gave the posts of the 2 sides without any interpretation nor speculation.Lets not put any flies in the ointment for the newbies.I'm sure they are capable of coming to their own conclusions without our wisdoms.



Given that Allan (the former BoD President) has never posted directly on this board, I think you have to devote a lot of time to glean that story from this thread. 

All of the information in my post is supported by the facts. There is no interpretation or speculation on my behalf.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> Given that Allan (the former BoD President) has never posted directly on this board, I think you have to devote a lot of time to glean that story from this thread.
> 
> All of the information in my post is supported by the facts. There is no interpretation or speculation on my behalf.



And what makes you the authority on this issue?By you having to glean the story you forgot to or intentionaly avoided to glean the rest of the story.
We all see what we want to see.(who said that?)
There are facts on both sides.


----------



## ecwinch

I do not claim to be an authority on the subject. But I have been involved in this thread for almost a year now, so I am offering a quick recap. I notice you did not raise any of the same concerns when Mark's posted his recap (#2095) soliciting support for the website.

So why is my post any different and so objectionable to draw your rebuke?

And it is interesting to note that you do not dispute my recap, only that the reader should page through 2100+ posts and reach their own opinion. Seems like the standard is only higher for those that oppose the crusade.


----------



## lovearuba

*he said she said*

If I wanted to make up my own mind I would go through the trouble of reading the whole thread and then going to the www.aocconcernedowners.com web site, read the opening page and take Allan up on his offer to contact him for his side of the story.  You can also read the official Marriott words on the ocean club web site.  Then take a look at your maintenace fee and ask yourself if you think change is needed.  

I wouldnt take anyones recap of the issues, too much bias on all sides.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> If I wanted to make up my own mind I would go through the trouble of reading the whole thread and then going to the www.aocconcernedowners.com web site, read the opening page and take Allan up on his offer to contact him for his side of the story.  You can also read the official Marriott words on the ocean club web site.  Then take a look at your maintenace fee and ask yourself if you think change is needed.
> 
> I wouldnt take anyones recap of the issues, too much bias on all sides.


Or we could do it all over again if you want, LOL.  To a degree we ALL bring our own biases to any discussion, however, in this discussion you have mostly 2 groups.  Those 2 groups are those that take the side that Marriott was dishonest and deceitful and those that want proof to accept that, there has been no particularly pro Marriott group just those on one side of the fence and those on the fence.  Put another way, those convinced by circumstantial evidence at best along with the statement of a given single person and those that want more than that.   To date there has been no proof produced to document those accusations that I am aware of, no smoking gun.  Lack of proof doesn't mean it's not true but it doesn't mean it is either.  That is my stance, I'm not willing to accept the assertion that Marriott purposefully misled and hid such issues without proof.  If that proof is produced, I'll be right there to say so.  I predicted long ago the proof would never come but somewhere along the way, this group would claim victory and proof out of some compromise/settlement and I'll say again that settlement does NOT equal proof.  Proof should produce full victory AND legal fees with Marriott covering the entire cost of such related repairs and thus settlement/compromise equals lack of proof.

I'd encourage anyone truly interested to go through the entire thread as well as the other avenues lovearuba suggests and keep an open mind to all aspects.  I'd suggest they still have an open mind when they get through all of that information as there really isn't enough info currently to make a final decision, unfortunately it's likely there never will be.


----------



## modoaruba

Am I talking in circles?In a different language?
Since we got everyone's attention I encourage the owners to at least go to the owner's site if you haven't done so yet and just take a look.Believe me there is no risk.You could always remove yourselves from it.
Make up your own minds if it's important enough for you.If not,no problem.
A fair and balanced view of both sides is available to those who can think on their own and come up with their own conclusions.
Don't let me or others disway the issues.
Just to let those who oppose the group know that they are actually helping the enrollment. So thank you on behalf of the group for your support.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> If I wanted to make up my own mind I would go through the trouble of reading the whole thread and then going to the www.aocconcernedowners.com web site, read the opening page and take Allan up on his offer to contact him for his side of the story.  You can also read the official Marriott words on the ocean club web site.  Then take a look at your maintenace fee and ask yourself if you think change is needed.
> 
> I wouldnt take anyones recap of the issues, too much bias on all sides.



Just the for the record, my opinion of the situation was developed after talking to Allan. But I would agree to the extent that everyone should ask their own questions. While it would be helpful if Allan was willing to participate in a forum like TUG, that is apparently not possible. He would rather engage questions on a one on one basis. So I would encourage interested members in having that conversation with Allan.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Am I talking in circles?In a different language?
> Since we got everyone's attention I encourage the owners to at least go to the owner's site if you haven't done so yet and just take a look.Believe me there is no risk.You could always remove yourselves from it.
> Make up your own minds if it's important enough for you.If not,no problem.
> *A fair and balanced view of both sides is available to those who can think on their own and come up with their own conclusions.*
> Don't let me or others disway the issues.
> Just to let those who oppose the group know that they are actually helping the enrollment. So thank you on behalf of the group for your support.



Does the owner's site have a fair and balanced view of both sides of issue? 

As long as owners understand that there is more to this discussion then what is on that site, I am fine in participating in promoting the site. I would hope that owners that learn of the site by reading this thread would then return to this thread. And after seeing one side of the dialog would then ask questions about the gaps in the factual evidence.


----------



## lovearuba

*owners site*



ecwinch said:


> Does the owner's site have a fair and balanced view of both sides of issue?
> 
> As long as owners understand that there is more to this discussion then what is on that site, I am fine in participating in promoting the site. I would hope that owners that learn of the site by reading this thread would then return to this thread. And after seeing one side of the dialog would then ask questions about the gaps in the factual evidence.


 
owners can write whatever they want on the site.  You would probably agree that the folks that are signing up are those that are concerned with issues around the ocean club otherwise they would probably not register for a site named www.aocconcernedowners.com.  The point of starting the site is to deal with owners only, not the rest of the world that participates in tug.  This was the recommendation and it was taken.  As for you talking to Allan, it was nice that you did that and he has no reason to continue the discussion here since he has plenty of communication to owners on the other site.  They are reading his communications there and posting their comments.  They are also taking advantage of contacting him for any concerns they have related to registration and the use of their information.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> owners can write whatever they want on the site.  You would probably agree that the folks that are signing up are those that are concerned with issues around the ocean club otherwise they would probably not register for a site named www.aocconcernedowners.com.  The point of starting the site is to deal with owners only, not the rest of the world that participates in tug.  This was the recommendation and it was taken.  As for you talking to Allan, it was nice that you did that and he has no reason to continue the discussion here since he has plenty of communication to owners on the other site.  They are reading his communications there and posting their comments.  They are also taking advantage of contacting him for any concerns they have related to registration and the use of their information.



So why the "support" provision in the terms and conditions, if owners can write whatever they want on the site?

_You are also agreeing that you support efforts to gain more transparency on the ASSOCIATION (Aruba Ocean Club Association Board). If you decide at any time that you no longer support this cause you can delete your account by using the home page and following the prompts to delete your account._


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> So why the "support" provision in the terms and conditions, if owners can write whatever they want on the site?
> 
> _You are also agreeing that you support efforts to gain more transparency on the ASSOCIATION (Aruba Ocean Club Association Board). If you decide at any time that you no longer support this cause you can delete your account by using the home page and following the prompts to delete your account._



Why are you so hell bent about this?If any owner wants to go onto the owner's site,who cares?(especially non-owners).
As I mentioned before,it's posts like yours that are making it extremely palatable for owners to join the site who otherwise would be lurking in the background.
Keep up the good work.You never disappoint.


----------



## london

*Lot of Posts and Many Opinions*

With almost 2200 posts, this thread may be on a course to slow down, and perhaps close soon.

Glad the Aruba Ocean Club owners have started a site for owners only, which may be more appropriate to handle communication with the Board of Directors.


----------



## billymach4

london said:


> With almost 2200 posts, this thread may be on a course to slow down, and perhaps close soon.
> 
> Glad the Aruba Ocean Club owners have started a site for owners only, which may be more appropriate to handle communication with the Board of Directors.



We are installing tolls on the Brooklyn Bridge. The new owner will collect all of the proceeds. 

The bidding starts now.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Why are you so hell bent about this?If any owner wants to go onto the owner's site,who cares?(especially non-owners).
> As I mentioned before,it's posts like yours that are making it extremely palatable for owners to join the site who otherwise would be lurking in the background.
> Keep up the good work.You never disappoint.



I am not "hell bent" about anything. Just pointing out the interesting contradiction of how a group that is interested in transparency constructs terms and conditions that allow them to exclude or censor any member that disagrees with them.  

Other than that, I am glad to help.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*The Wisdom Of Dilbert.*




ecwinch said:


> I am not "hell bent" about anything.


Denial is proof. 

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


----------



## Retired to Travel

*Also a concerned owner, but...*

I have refrained from posting to this thread recently. When I have previously, I have been accused of being a spy for, or working for, Marriott. I assure you, we ARE owners. I have posted on other TUG threads well before this one was started, and I have always listed our MAO ownership on my profile. We too are “concerned owners.” However, our concerns are mainly with keeping our personal information private, and with the additional costs to the association of defending the litigation being brought about by marksue’s group. Are we pleased with the higher MFs and SA? Of course not! Nobody likes to spend more money, especially in a difficult economy. However, we feel that these costs have been adequately explained and justified. The refurbishment was long overdue, and the photos look great. We are looking forward to our stay this winter to see it for ourselves. Also, contrary to what others have experienced, we WERE informed when we purchased in 2000 that the resort was not originally developed by Marriott, but was an abandoned project which Marriott took over. So, yes, we went into this with our eyes open and are not surprised by the special assessment. We feel the 48% Marriott is offering to pay toward the new roof is fair. We do not wish to see that offer pulled off the table as a result of the pending litigation. We do agree with the group’s goal of not integrating the Ocean Club and Surf Club, but we feel there are better and less antagonistic ways of expressing that preference.

Others have stated that if you sign up on the group’s website, you can always change your mind later. While that may remove you from the list of owners supporting the cause, I’m not comfortable that the personal information provided to gain access to the site has not already been added to the group’s database. That bell is not that easily unrung. Case in point: I have recently received (and ignored) invitations from Mark Silverstein to be his friend on Facebook.  I cannot be sure why my email address is in his hands, but suspect that it may have been passed on from Allan Cohen, whose email letters I received while he was President, then again in Nov. 2008 and Jan. 2009.  We also received an email from the "Concerned Owners" group in January, 2009, asking us to sign a complaint list with our name, address, number of weeeks, and phone.  We ignored that too.  Sharing email lists is annoying but not harmful in itself.  What can be harmful is the attachment of name/address/phone to that info.  (We do receive phone calls from TS realtors and we cannot be sure where that data leaked either.)

Once such information is out there, it’s out there. We are meticulous about keeping our personal information private, and I’m sure many other owners share that concern. We always opt out of allowing our contact information to be shared by anyone we do business with. In fact, the only lawsuit against Marriott we might be inclined to join would be if they were to release our contact information to any owner or group of owners just because they ask for it. We appreciate Marriott fighting to uphold its privacy policy and protect us owners from unwanted proliferation of our personal information.


----------



## oldone

Retiredtotravel,  i agree with you completely.  These people want way too much personal information and i am not going to sign on to their web site if that's how i get in.  i'm glad we're not the only ones who feel this way.  from what i can get from the posts outlined above and also all the other information here it's a very flimsy argument and i don't see what other information they could have that would make me feel any different.  the timeshare looks great now and you can easily see where our money went.  nothing else in aruba comes close in terms of the luxury of the resort.  marriott has provided good explanation for all the extra costs so i plan to just enjoy the resort and not join any groups that will just cause further increases in costs because of legal fees.  hope they don't spoil it for the rest of us.


----------



## Dean

Retired to Travel said:


> I have refrained from posting to this thread recently. When I have previously, I have been accused of being a spy for, or working for, Marriott. I assure you, we ARE owners. I have posted on other TUG threads well before this one was started, and I have always listed our MAO ownership on my profile. We too are “concerned owners.” However, our concerns are mainly with keeping our personal information private, and with the additional costs to the association of defending the litigation being brought about by marksue’s group. Are we pleased with the higher MFs and SA? Of course not! Nobody likes to spend more money, especially in a difficult economy. However, we feel that these costs have been adequately explained and justified. The refurbishment was long overdue, and the photos look great. We are looking forward to our stay this winter to see it for ourselves. Also, contrary to what others have experienced, we WERE informed when we purchased in 2000 that the resort was not originally developed by Marriott, but was an abandoned project which Marriott took over. So, yes, we went into this with our eyes open and are not surprised by the special assessment. We feel the 48% Marriott is offering to pay toward the new roof is fair. We do not wish to see that offer pulled off the table as a result of the pending litigation. We do agree with the group’s goal of not integrating the Ocean Club and Surf Club, but we feel there are better and less antagonistic ways of expressing that preference.
> 
> Others have stated that if you sign up on the group’s website, you can always change your mind later. While that may remove you from the list of owners supporting the cause, I’m not comfortable that the personal information provided to gain access to the site has not already been added to the group’s database. That bell is not that easily unrung. Case in point: I have recently received (and ignored) invitations from Mark Silverstein to be his friend on Facebook.  I cannot be sure why my email address is in his hands, but suspect that it may have been passed on from Allan Cohen, whose email letters I received while he was President, then again in Nov. 2008 and Jan. 2009.  We also received an email from the "Concerned Owners" group in January, 2009, asking us to sign a complaint list with our name, address, number of weeeks, and phone.  We ignored that too.  Sharing email lists is annoying but not harmful in itself.  What can be harmful is the attachment of name/address/phone to that info.  (We do receive phone calls from TS realtors and we cannot be sure where that data leaked either.)
> 
> Once such information is out there, it’s out there. We are meticulous about keeping our personal information private, and I’m sure many other owners share that concern. We always opt out of allowing our contact information to be shared by anyone we do business with. In fact, the only lawsuit against Marriott we might be inclined to join would be if they were to release our contact information to any owner or group of owners just because they ask for it. We appreciate Marriott fighting to uphold its privacy policy and protect us owners from unwanted proliferation of our personal information.


Well stated; as a Marriott owner but not an Aruba owner, I have voiced many of your concerns (if not all) as possibilities though never as eloquently as you have done.  It sounds like your email was obtained illegally and by fraud, this would concern me greatly as it obviously does you.  If you believe it was obtained inappropriately through the actions of this group or others, you may want to contact Marriott directly to voice your concern.


----------



## SueDonJ

Retired to Travel said:


> I have refrained from posting to this thread recently. When I have previously, I have been accused of being a spy for, or working for, Marriott. I assure you, we ARE owners. I have posted on other TUG threads well before this one was started, and I have always listed our MAO ownership on my profile. We too are “concerned owners.” However, our concerns are mainly with keeping our personal information private, and with the additional costs to the association of defending the litigation being brought about by marksue’s group. Are we pleased with the higher MFs and SA? Of course not! Nobody likes to spend more money, especially in a difficult economy. However, we feel that these costs have been adequately explained and justified. The refurbishment was long overdue, and the photos look great. We are looking forward to our stay this winter to see it for ourselves. Also, contrary to what others have experienced, we WERE informed when we purchased in 2000 that the resort was not originally developed by Marriott, but was an abandoned project which Marriott took over. So, yes, we went into this with our eyes open and are not surprised by the special assessment. We feel the 48% Marriott is offering to pay toward the new roof is fair. We do not wish to see that offer pulled off the table as a result of the pending litigation. We do agree with the group’s goal of not integrating the Ocean Club and Surf Club, but we feel there are better and less antagonistic ways of expressing that preference.
> 
> Others have stated that if you sign up on the group’s website, you can always change your mind later. While that may remove you from the list of owners supporting the cause, I’m not comfortable that the personal information provided to gain access to the site has not already been added to the group’s database. That bell is not that easily unrung. Case in point: I have recently received (and ignored) invitations from Mark Silverstein to be his friend on Facebook.  I cannot be sure why my email address is in his hands, but suspect that it may have been passed on from Allan Cohen, whose email letters I received while he was President, then again in Nov. 2008 and Jan. 2009.  We also received an email from the "Concerned Owners" group in January, 2009, asking us to sign a complaint list with our name, address, number of weeeks, and phone.  We ignored that too.  Sharing email lists is annoying but not harmful in itself.  What can be harmful is the attachment of name/address/phone to that info.  *(We do receive phone calls from TS realtors and we cannot be sure where that data leaked either.)*
> 
> Once such information is out there, it’s out there. We are meticulous about keeping our personal information private, and I’m sure many other owners share that concern. We always opt out of allowing our contact information to be shared by anyone we do business with. In fact, the only lawsuit against Marriott we might be inclined to join would be if they were to release our contact information to any owner or group of owners just because they ask for it. We appreciate Marriott fighting to uphold its privacy policy and protect us owners from unwanted proliferation of our personal information.



This is an excellent post, RetiredtoTravel.  You've so clearly articulated the concerns that we non-owners of MAOC have mentioned repeatedly here.  If I was an owner there, I would feel exactly as you do.  I hope that you take Dean's suggestion and contact Marriott directly with your concerns.

About your sentence that I bolded - it's entirely possible that the phone calls you're receiving from the TS realtors (which are called "postcard companies" elsewhere on TUG) have nothing to do with any MAOC ownership list that has been compiled by either a Marriott office or the minority ownership group in this thread.  Those companies harvest owner names and addresses from the public records, i.e. recorded deeds, mortgages, etc...

(I've been away for a week and debated sending this in a private message to RetiredtoTravel so as to not resurrect the thread, but then I thought that maybe could be looked at as suspect because this is one of the only times I've attempted to deflect blame from Mark/Allan/etc.  Oh well, it was time for someone to put it back on Page One anyway.)


----------



## lovearuba

*email lists*



SueDonJ said:


> This is an excellent post, RetiredtoTravel. You've so clearly articulated the concerns that we non-owners of MAOC have mentioned repeatedly here. If I was an owner there, I would feel exactly as you do. I hope that you take Dean's suggestion and contact Marriott directly with your concerns.
> 
> About your sentence that I bolded - it's entirely possible that the phone calls you're receiving from the TS realtors (which are called "postcard companies" elsewhere on TUG) have nothing to do with any MAOC ownership list that has been compiled by either a Marriott office or the minority ownership group in this thread. Those companies harvest owner names and addresses from the public records, i.e. recorded deeds, mortgages, etc...
> 
> (I've been away for a week and debated sending this in a private message to RetiredtoTravel so as to not resurrect the thread, but then I thought that maybe could be looked at as suspect because this is one of the only times I've attempted to deflect blame from Mark/Allen/etc. Oh well, it was time for someone to put it back on Page One anyway.)


 
For anyone who does not want contact, they can simply send an email to Allan asking him to put them on a do not email list.  Marksue will have to address retiredtotravel's concern on asking him to be a friend in facebook.  Retiredtotravel, there is one person who has contacted Allan asking to be taken off the email list because they did not want to be contacted, I'm not sure if it is you but I did take care of the request so if you are that person you will not be contacted again.  


The registrations are growing as more folks learn about the site and the folks that have registered are appreciative about the efforts of the group and the ability of posting to the forum without the constant critique of folks that are non owners.  There is a significant amount of information on the site and a forum to allow owners to communicate with each other.    The website address is:  www.aocconcernedowners.com


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> For anyone who does not want contact, they can simply send an email to Allan asking him to put them on a do not email list.  Marksue will have to address retiredtotravel's concern on asking him to be a friend in facebook.  Retiredtotravel, there is one person who has contacted Allan asking to be taken off the email list because they did not want to be contacted, I'm not sure if it is you but I did take care of the request so if you are that person you will not be contacted again.



This doesn't really address the issue that RetiredToTravel raised, does it?  RetiredToTravel has never specifically offered his contact information to any member of the "concerned owners" group.  His complaint is that his email contact information has been used by Mark Silverstein (Marksue) to contact him without his express permission, and that it appears his information was harvested from an ownership list that Allan Cohen had access to and utilized as a former member of the MAOC BOD.  Do the bylaws of MAOC allow for former BOD members to keep that privileged contact information for personal use after their terms have ended?

Addressing that issue, have Mark and Allan contacted other MAOC owners through similar channels?  That's a concern, and that's why Dean's suggestion to contact Marriott directly should be followed.  



lovearuba said:


> The registrations are growing as more folks learn about the site and the folks that have registered are appreciative about the efforts of the group and the ability of posting to the forum without the constant critique of folks that are non owners.  There is a significant amount of information on the site and a forum to allow owners to communicate with each other.    The website address is:  www.aocconcernedowners.com



Again, it's not a bad thing that you've developed a website for only those MAOC owners who support this minority ownership group's efforts and wish to discuss the issues at your resort without outside influence.  But I think that it's also important for sites such as this thread on TUG to continue, because it's only on unbiased sites like this that MAOC owners can gain access to the complete information that will enable them to reach their own informed opinions - about both the issues at the resort as well as whether or not they wish to include themselves on any list of disgruntled owners that may be made available to Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD in the future.


----------



## lovearuba

*retired to travels concerns*

If this user wanted to be taken off all lists related to the website, I have offered him advise.  If Marksue has his email do not assume it came from Allan.  Mark will have to answer that question.  I've received lots of emails from people who I never gave my address to so I am not going to accuse Mark or Allan of doing that.  I would also suggest that they address it with who they believe the offenders are.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> If this user wanted to be taken off all lists related to the website, I have offered him advise.  If Marksue has his email do not assume it came from Allan.  Mark will have to answer that question.  I've received lots of emails from people who I never gave my address to so I am not going to accuse Mark or Allan of doing that.  I would also suggest that they address it with who they believe the offenders are.


If one owns at this resort and received an email about this ownership from a former BOD member or their representative without giving their info, it is reasonable to assume the email was obtained from an owners list, in this case that would be illegally as I interpret the situation.  Asking to be removed does not address what I would see as the core issue, that of the illegal access and usage thereof.  On a related note, one who signs up on this group and then later asks to be removed or deletes their info, does not really know their info has truly been removed.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> If this user wanted to be taken off all lists related to the website, I have offered him advise.  If Marksue has his email do not assume it came from Allan.  Mark will have to answer that question.  I've received lots of emails from people who I never gave my address to so I am not going to accuse Mark or Allan of doing that.  I would also suggest that they address it with who they believe the offenders are.



In situations like these plausible deniability is always important. I am sure that Mark will clear the situation up.

The concern that Allan provided Mark with e-mail addresses was raised in this thread a long time ago. Let me see if I can find it....

EDIT:

Here it is. 

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=639586&postcount=415

here is the page link also:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=639586#post639586

Hmmm, I seem to notice that Mark just dodges the question. Perhaps he will clear it up this time. 

And for our newcomers, if you read some of his post around that one, you will see why some of us do not hold Mark in high regard. Perhaps it is just a fluke that two different owners report the same experience and there is one common fact - that they both sent e-mails to Allan. Perhaps RetiredToTravel is a plant like DBerg.


----------



## lovearuba

*not sure what you infer*



ecwinch said:


> In situations like these plausible deniability is always important. I am sure that Mark will clear the situation up.
> 
> The concern that Allan provided Mark with e-mail addresses was raised in this thread a long time ago. Let me see if I can find it....
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Here it is.
> 
> http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=639586&postcount=415
> 
> here is the page link also:
> 
> http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=639586#post639586
> 
> Hmmm, I seem to notice that Mark just dodges the question. Perhaps he will clear it up this time.
> 
> And for our newcomers, if you read some of his post around that one, you will see why some of us do not hold Mark in high regard. Perhaps it is just a fluke that two different owners report the same experience and there is one common fact - that they both sent e-mails to Allan. Perhaps RetiredToTravel is a plant like DBerg.


 
Hi Eric
I am not sure what you mean by Retired to travel being a plant. No one said that but you.  I've never questioned his integrity. As for DBerg, I have had direct contact with him and he is not an owner and seems to think threatening people will get them to stop supporting the cause.  I've received a personal email from him so I am pretty sure he has issues.  Otherwise it doesnt make a lot of sense to threaten me.  I understand why you feel the way you do about Mark and I'm sure you understand my perspective on your comments.  We will always disagree, I do think its fair not to assume the worst in people.  As for your evidence of two owners, you expect everyone who disagrees with you to justify their cause but you take it at face value that everyone who agrees with you who says they are an owner is an owner.  A little bias there.


----------



## modoaruba

WOW!
Been gone a couple of days and came back to the old what are they going to do with my info routine and how did they get my number,etc.
I've been and so has everyone out there been solicited by stuff prior to,during and so will we be after we even bought our TS's.
Actually we bought ours due to Marriott's junk mail solicitation years ago.
So by deductive reasoning,due to Marriott having gotten our personal info from whatever source it was(obviously NOT the owner's group)we got ourselves into this conundrum.
We are witnessing first hand at the damage of letting personal info out.

REALLY?


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> WOW!
> Been gone a couple of days and came back to the old what are they going to do with my info routine and how did they get my number,etc.
> I've been and so has everyone out there been solicited by stuff prior to,during and so will we be after we even bought our TS's.
> Actually we bought ours due to Marriott's junk mail solicitation years ago.
> So by deductive reasoning,due to Marriott having gotten our personal info from whatever source it was(obviously NOT the owner's group)we got ourselves into this conundrum.
> We are witnessing first hand at the damage of letting personal info out.
> 
> REALLY?



Yes, _REALLY_, Modo.  For some reason you don't want to acknowledge the differences between the reasons and means for MAOC owners being contacted by Marriott/MVCI, the timeshare postcard companies, and Mark/Allan on behalf of this minority ownership group.

Marriott/MVCI contacts owners with advertising material for any resort and/or hotel in the Marriott family.  Generally owners agree to those types of solicitations when purchasing direct from Marriott and/or when signing up for the various websites - marriottrewards.com, my-vacationclub.com, etc.  That's a legal use of contact information, and offers a means by which the owners can elect to stop solicitations.

The timeshare postcard companies contact owners with targeted promotions.  They harvest contact information through the public records - deeds, mortgages, etc. - of the area in which they do business.  That's another legal use of contact information which the owners can elect to stop by way of Do Not Call and similar legislation.

Based on what RetiredToTravel has related here, Mark and/or Allan have contacted MAOC owners for the specific personal purpose of this minority ownership group's efforts against Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD.  It appears they've harvested owners' names and contact information by way of privileged information that Allan had access to as a former member of the MAOC BOD, and it appears they've been doing so since before this group established their website and/or offered owners the option to be removed from Mark's/Allan's ownership list.

All of that appears to be an illegal use of ownership contact information, unless the bylaws provide that former members of the BOD are entitled to keep and utilize any privileged information they may have obtained while members.

Whether or not this is nitpicking to you is immaterial here.  Some MAOC owners may think it's important enough to consider when determining if they want to join the "concerned owners" group and/or that website, and it doesn't appear that they'll find an explanation of any of this at that website.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Yes, _REALLY_, Modo.  For some reason you don't want to acknowledge the differences between the reasons and means for MAOC owners being contacted by Marriott/MVCI, the timeshare postcard companies, and Mark/Allan on behalf of this minority ownership group.
> 
> Marriott/MVCI contacts owners with advertising material for any resort and/or hotel in the Marriott family.  Generally owners agree to those types of solicitations when purchasing direct from Marriott and/or when signing up for the various websites - marriottrewards.com, my-vacationclub.com, etc.  That's a legal use of contact information, and offers a means by which the owners can elect to stop solicitations.
> 
> The timeshare postcard companies contact owners with targeted promotions.  They harvest contact information through the public records - deeds, mortgages, etc. - of the area in which they do business.  That's another legal use of contact information which the owners can elect to stop by way of Do Not Call and similar legislation.
> 
> Based on what RetiredToTravel has related here, Mark and/or Allan have contacted MAOC owners for the specific personal purpose of this minority ownership group's efforts against Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD.  It appears they've harvested owners' names and contact information by way of privileged information that Allan had access to as a former member of the MAOC BOD, and it appears they've been doing so since before this group established their website and/or offered owners the option to be removed from Mark's/Allan's ownership list.
> 
> All of that appears to be an illegal use of ownership contact information, unless the bylaws provide that former members of the BOD are entitled to keep and utilize any privileged information they may have obtained while members.
> 
> Whether or not this is nitpicking to you is immaterial here.  Some MAOC owners may think it's important enough to consider when determining if they want to join the "concerned owners" group and/or that website, and it doesn't appear that they'll find an explanation of any of this at that website.



Very speculative on your part.
Prove illegality before you throw it out there.
Some MAOC "may"?-of course the use of this word is carefully chosen.
Also prove damage.

It is nitpicking at best- BS.

I guarantee that no one will try to solicit anyone to buy a magazine by having signed up on the owner's site.(I don't have anything to do with the site except viewing it.-funny defending it).


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> Very speculative on your part.
> Prove illegality before you throw it out there.
> Some MAOC "may"?-of course the use of this word is carefully chosen.
> Also prove damage.
> 
> It is nitpicking at best- BS.
> 
> I guarantee that no one will try to solicit anyone to buy a magazine by having signed up on the owner's site.(I don't have anything to do with the site except viewing it.-funny defending it).



Oh, I see how it is.  The "concerned owners" who have formed this minority dissenting group against Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD can throw out all sorts of speculative stuff without proving illegality on Marriott's part.  But those of us who disagree with or question that minority group's opinions/actions cannot, even if we qualify our thoughts with phrases such as "it appears" or "it may," etc.

Anyway, it's beyond me how you can think that you can take legal action of any kind against Marriott et al without "nitpicking."  That's what laws entail, Modo - nitpicking!


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Oh, I see how it is.  The "concerned owners" who have formed this minority dissenting group against Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD can throw out all sorts of speculative stuff without proving illegality on Marriott's part.  But those of us who disagree with or question that minority group's opinions/actions cannot, even if we qualify our thoughts with phrases such as "it appears" or "it may," etc.
> 
> Anyway, it's beyond me how you can think that you can take legal action of any kind against Marriott et al without "nitpicking."  That's what laws entail, Modo - nitpicking!



So that's how the right nitpicking lawyers were able to give the go ahead for Marriott to send me the junk mail as opposed to The GRoup not having the right nitpicker to state their facts,so therefore they are not allowed to ask me to join- in your opinion.
It comes down to the group better get a darn good nitpicker.
Getting silly isn't it.
For those owners who want to get an insight as to the group's site as to what it's about,go there it's pretty tame compared to here.Just friendly owners.

And,by the way,I am NOT taking legal action against Marriott.


----------



## lovearuba

*and what about credit card info*



SueDonJ said:


> Yes, _REALLY_, Modo. For some reason you don't want to acknowledge the differences between the reasons and means for MAOC owners being contacted by Marriott/MVCI, the timeshare postcard companies, and Mark/Allan on behalf of this minority ownership group.
> 
> Marriott/MVCI contacts owners with advertising material for any resort and/or hotel in the Marriott family. Generally owners agree to those types of solicitations when purchasing direct from Marriott and/or when signing up for the various websites - marriottrewards.com, my-vacationclub.com, etc. That's a legal use of contact information, and offers a means by which the owners can elect to stop solicitations.
> 
> The timeshare postcard companies contact owners with targeted promotions. They harvest contact information through the public records - deeds, mortgages, etc. - of the area in which they do business. That's another legal use of contact information which the owners can elect to stop by way of Do Not Call and similar legislation.
> 
> Based on what RetiredToTravel has related here, Mark and/or Allan have contacted MAOC owners for the specific personal purpose of this minority ownership group's efforts against Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD. It appears they've harvested owners' names and contact information by way of privileged information that Allan had access to as a former member of the MAOC BOD, and it appears they've been doing so since before this group established their website and/or offered owners the option to be removed from Mark's/Allan's ownership list.
> 
> All of that appears to be an illegal use of ownership contact information, unless the bylaws provide that former members of the BOD are entitled to keep and utilize any privileged information they may have obtained while members.
> 
> Whether or not this is nitpicking to you is immaterial here. Some MAOC owners may think it's important enough to consider when determining if they want to join the "concerned owners" group and/or that website, and it doesn't appear that they'll find an explanation of any of this at that website.


 
Since you are back on board justifying Marriotts use of your data, were you offended when they gave your credit card info out?  Just dont understand why you havent been writing for two years complaining about that.  Its more of your scare tactics to try to prevent people from signing up.  It is not working, there are a significant number of owners who have registered and it increases daily. They dont seem to have your concerns.  I am taking a break from tug for a bit as I have registrations to approve.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> Since you are back on board justifying Marriotts use of your data, were you offended when they gave your credit card info out?  Just dont understand why you havent been writing for two years complaining about that.  Its more of your scare tactics to try to prevent people from signing up.  It is not working, there are a significant number of owners who have registered and it increases daily. They dont seem to have your concerns.  I am taking a break from tug for a bit as I have registrations to approve.



I'm not sure what you're writing about here because my credit card info has never been "given out" by Marriott.  I do remember the discussion in this thread about it happening to others, though, and I related then that a similar security breach had happened with our debit card information at BJ's Wholesale Club.  But I don't think I've said that it's ever a good thing when contact and/or financial information is illegally released/used for any reason.  Of course it's not a good thing, which is why it's important to point out that it may be happening here.

You can call it scare tactics if you want, but I'll continue to post my opinions here in this thread when/if I see things that I would find questionable if they were happening in regard to my home resorts or ownership.  That's TUG's greatest strength, I think, that the various differing opinions make it possible for any timeshare owners to become completely informed about all aspects of ownership.


----------



## marksue

*Retired to Travel*

It was not my intention to invite you to facebook.  Just so you understand and anyone else who got the invite. WHen you join it turns out unless you hit skip on a certain page it goes out to your AOL account and sends an email to anyone you have emailed in the past since aol adds all emails to your address book.  Sorry you got the email.


----------



## Luckybee

Mark...I suppose I should write you a private email for this since its a bit off topic but how did you find out about this. Reason I ask is that I had a situation arise with a business colleague who very much had a problem with his computer sending out facebook invitations to a number of business colleagues and it has proved rather embarrasing for him and he hasnt been able to determine how it happened....can you elaborate a bit ? Or send me an email doing so? And if you do can you give very simple steps for those of us who know very little about computers


----------



## marksue

Lucky,

I will send you a note tonight as I can not get to facebook from my office as they block access to the site.  The thing is it can happen over and over again.  One of the PIA things with facebook.


----------



## ecwinch

I notice that Mark has visited the forum.

I also notice that he has failed to address the recent and previous allegations that Allan provided him with e-mail addresses of owners that Allan obtained in his official capacity as a member of the AOC board.

Seems like it is a simple issue to resolve. Mark only need say:

"I have never received any e-mail addresses from Allan."

?


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> So that's how the right nitpicking lawyers were able to give the go ahead for Marriott to send me the junk mail as opposed to The GRoup not having the right nitpicker to state their facts,so therefore they are not allowed to ask me to join- in your opinion.
> It comes down to the group better get a darn good nitpicker.
> Getting silly isn't it.
> For those owners who want to get an insight as to the group's site as to what it's about,go there it's pretty tame compared to here.Just friendly owners.
> 
> And,by the way,I am NOT taking legal action against Marriott.



Another post that completely ignores the point that Sue made and instead tries to steer the conversation into absurd analogies.

You might have just posted "Look over there  - is that Elvis?"


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> We will always disagree,* I do think its fair not to assume the worst in people.*



I take it you apply this advice to everyone except AOC board members? Board members  who are volunteers and owners just like you.


----------



## marksue

ecwinch said:


> I notice that Mark has visited the forum.
> 
> I also notice that he has failed to address the recent and previous allegations that Allan provided him with e-mail addresses of owners that Allan obtained in his official capacity as a member of the AOC board.
> 
> Seems like it is a simple issue to resolve. Mark only need say:
> 
> "I have never received any e-mail addresses from Allan."
> 
> ?



I have never received any e-mail addresses from Allan that he obtained from marriott in his official capacity as of member of the board.

You satisfied lol


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> I have never received any e-mail addresses from Allan that he obtained from marriott in his official capacity as of member of the board.
> 
> You satisfied lol



Unfortunately no. Would you mind restating it and removing the "FROM MARRIOTT" caveat? That is the crux of question. Surely as some point Allan has provided you with some e-mail addresses. The concern is specific to his service on the board.

It is safe to assume that Allan received communication - either directly or AOC forwarded to him - from AOC owners. Apparently at one point in time the AOC published an e-mail address for Allan. This is one of your complaints - that they removed the director e-mail addresses from the website. 

The initial report on this problem was in regard to an e-mail that was allegedly sent by you and in that e-mail, you indicate that you received the owner's e-mail address from Allan.

Those e-mails were in his official capacity as a member of the board - just as I receive e-mail from my customers. But I cannot harvest those addresses and provide them to a third-party. That is the allegation.

The allegation is not that Marriott provided the owners list to Allan and he in turn has given it to you. So lets try to be clear.


----------



## modoaruba

I just view the absurdity as the entertainment anymore.
Better than reality TV.

The more reason for owners to check out the owner's site.
See what others are trying to prevent you from seeing.

Ever wanted to see what's behind the curtain?

Eric,I am always right and you are not. So there.


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> It was not my intention to invite you to facebook.  Just so you understand and anyone else who got the invite. WHen you join it turns out unless you hit skip on a certain page it goes out to your AOL account and sends an email to anyone you have emailed in the past since aol adds all emails to your address book.  Sorry you got the email.



I still don't understand how you got RetiredToTravels' email address in the first place.  If he got an automatic Facebook invite from you because his contact information was already in your AOL address book, how did it get there?


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> Unfortunately no. Would you mind restating it and removing the "FROM MARRIOTT" caveat? That is the crux of question. Surely as some point Allan has provided you with some e-mail addresses. The concern is specific to his service on the board.
> 
> It is safe to assume that Allan received communication - either directly or AOC forwarded to him - from AOC owners. Apparently at one point in time the AOC published an e-mail address for Allan. This is one of your complaints - that they removed the director e-mail addresses from the website.
> 
> The initial report on this problem was in regard to an e-mail that was allegedly sent by you and in that e-mail, you indicate that you received the owner's e-mail address from Allan.
> 
> Those e-mails were in his official capacity as a member of the board - just as I receive e-mail from my customers. But I cannot harvest those addresses and provide them to a third-party. That is the allegation.
> 
> The allegation is not that Marriott provided the owners list to Allan and he in turn has given it to you. So lets try to be clear.



Silly Eric, now you're just nitpicking.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> I still don't understand how you got RetiredToTravels' email address in the first place.  If he got an automatic Facebook invite from you because his contact information was already in your AOL address book, how did it get there?



Ditto to you too Sue.

I'll be sure to raise my hand before I can go to the bathroom.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> Ditto to you too Sue.
> 
> I'll be sure to raise my hand before I can go to the bathroom.



You think it's "silly," Modo, but it appears there are real concerns here that Allan and/or Mark have taken some legal risks with the contact information of MAOC owners, by virtue of Allan's former status as a member of the BOD.

If I was an owner who was considering joining an effort that may result in any legal proceeding against my resort/management company, the actions of the people who would be spearheading those efforts would be very important to me.  And I wouldn't consider it "silly" to think twice about following the lead of those who have no problem with trying to circumvent the bylaws/governing documents of my resort.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> You think it's "silly," Modo, but it appears there are real concerns here that Allan and/or Mark have taken some legal risks with the contact information of MAOC owners, by virtue of Allan's former status as a member of the BOD.
> 
> If I was an owner who was considering joining an effort that may result in any legal proceeding against my resort/management company, the actions of the people who would be spearheading those efforts would be very important to me.  And I wouldn't consider it "silly" to think twice about following the lead of those who have no problem with trying to circumvent the bylaws/governing documents of my resort.



IMO I don't think it "silly",I know it's "silly".:whoopie:


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> ... The more reason for owners to check out the owner's site.
> *See what others are trying to prevent you from seeing.*..



Actually, the contradiction here is what I do find "silly."

Do you realize that you're advising owners to join (because you can't "check out" anything there until you've registered) a site which admittedly censors the participants as well as the information contained therein?  I'm curious - which websites do you suggest those owners might want to check out if they're interested in a more unbiased view?


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Ditto to you too Sue.
> 
> I'll be sure to raise my hand before I can go to the bathroom.



Modo,

As much as I want to help you "crusaders" keep this thread alive to promote the owner site, I notice your rebuttals have gotten more and more infantile, so maybe you should start raising your hand before you post. 

On a serious note, in the interest of keeping the thread productive, could you at least try to offer an well-reasoned reply to the issue being discussed?

I do not mind helping you attract owners, but there has to be some value in it for us. If I was a crusader, I would be concerned that potential supporters will judge the crusade on the quality of the posts you make.

I mean Sue asks a legitimate question, and you post "ditto" and make a bathroom analogy. I am not even sure you read her question, with your post being so off-topic. Just seems to be more mis-direction to avoid a real issue.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> The more reason for owners to check out the owner's site.
> See what others are trying to prevent you from seeing.
> 
> Ever wanted to see what's behind the curtain?
> 
> *Eric,I am always right and you are not. So there.*



This is what I am talking about in my previous post. Am I supposed to come back with:

 "I am rubber, you are glue, what bounces off me, sticks to you". 

And in addition to Sue's point, I think there is a lack of consistency in your message. 

Are we helping you promote the site as you have previously indicated, or are we trying to "prevent" owners from seeing it?

Again - I think you are inferring that we do not like the owner site or do not want people to go there. No one has ever said either of those things. So how are we "preventing" owners from seeing anything?


----------



## modoaruba

What is the big deal if owners join in order to get information which otherwise they would not have.
They can at any time delist if not satisfied or got frightened through your posts.
Registering and viewing does not place the owner in a compromising situation as far as I can see.There is always a way out and the info given to register would disappear.
The information that I got on the site is very enlightening.I can use that info to conduct my own research and so far it looks legitimate to me.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> What is the big deal if owners join in order to get information which otherwise they would not have.
> They can at any time delist if not satisfied or got frightened through your posts.
> Registering and viewing does not place the owner in a compromising situation as far as I can see.There is always a way out and the info given to register would disappear.
> The information that I got on the site is very enlightening.I can use that info to conduct my own research and so far it looks legitimate to me.




Again, you keep trying to "create" this issue that we take exception with the owner site existing. Again - I fail to understand why you keep trying to make this the issue - when no one has raised it.

If owners go there and there is "owner" only information that is valuable and they use it as you indicate, that is a good thing. I am glad that I can help in that regard.

But I would hope that some of the more reasonable owners would then come back to this thread, and ask questions about the information that is likely missing from that site. i.e. the information that does not support the crusade - like Allan providing e-mail addresses to Mark. And others.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> What is the big deal if owners join in order to get information which otherwise they would not have.
> They can at any time delist if not satisfied or got frightened through your posts.
> Registering and viewing does not place the owner in a compromising situation as far as I can see.There is always a way out and the info given to register would disappear.
> The information that I got on the site is very enlightening.I can use that info to conduct my own research and so far it looks legitimate to me.



Honestly, as I've been looking at everything that's been related throughout this thread,  I've tried to base my opinion as if it was happening at one of my resorts.  That's my starting point.

Reading here has led me to these conclusions:
- Most of the info herein has been biased without the supporting documentation;

-the statements and/or actions of Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD have been completely discounted without basis;

-  the few attempts at securing owner's rights as provided in the governing documents have been legally inept;

- there is the appearance of illegalities performed by a former member of the BOD who is a principal of these efforts, with respect to his suggestion while he was a member that owners consider a lawsuit against Marriott et al as well as the use of privileged owner contact information obtained in his official member capacity;

- an open-minded discussion of the issues is not what the leaders of this "concerned owners" group want, as evidenced by the ridicule and discounting of anyone - MAOC owners and non-owners alike - who question anything in this thread;

- there is the appearance that owners' names and contact information have been solicited at the resort and through e-mail in a deceptive manner, with the intended usage of that info not being clearly defined.

I'm sure I could think of more but you get the point.  Because of the questionable items above that this thread has raised, if I was an MAOC owner I would not participate in any website that the principals of this thread developed.  That decision is further cemented by the demands for contact information and support that the website requires upon registration.  It just wouldn't be possible for me to review any information that may be contained there, in any different light than the one here.

_[Edit]_  Just to be clear, I couldn't care less that the site exists or if any MAOC owner decides to review it.  I just don't think it can be any more trusted than this thread to provide ALL of the information that is necessary for an MAOC owner to form an educated opinion about the issues concerning the resort, and more importantly, to blindly support any actions that the self-appointed leaders of this "concerned owners" group may take in the future against Marriott et al.


----------



## ecwinch

I am in agreement with Sue.

There is another owner advocacy group at one of my resorts, and I have distanced myself from that group because they want to use innuendo and speculation to solicit support from owners.

They are a dedicated group of passionate owners, and feel strongly about a number of issues. I believe they are good people with good intentions. On some issues they have legitimate concerns. But rather than focus on the issues that are well-supported by the facts, they chose to adopt the "shotgun" approach. IMO - they diminish their cause by bringing in issues that are not well-supported by the facts. But those issues cater to the extremists and they want owner support. But what happens if the extremists take control of the direction?

I think you are judged by the company you keep. So while I support their objectives on the issues that are legitimate, I cannot support their policy of adopting the issues that are based on "maybe" and "what-if" speculation. 

I see this discussion the same way.  AOC owners have some legitimate concerns that I have acknowledged here. But I fear that the net effect will be the support of private agenda's more than improving the owner experience at the resort. I think Mark's tactics demonstrate that point. JMO.


----------



## Luckybee

To other owners still reading this....Perhaps I was mistaken but I have always thought the whole point of the owners site was to no longer engage in futile debates with non owners about a resort that has absolutely nothing to do with them. If I am correct shouldnt Tug simply be used at various times to point out that there is in fact an "owners" site available, and when new information is available on that site. 
Otherwise aren't we as owners simply falling back into the same habit of needlessly wasting our time debating with those who ....well....you know


----------



## ecwinch

But we need to have something to do until Mark comes back with another non-specific answer to the question asked. 

And unfortunately when you do such a poor job of defending your position, I can fully understand why want the discussion to stop. No sense in having people realize that their is more to the story than what you publish in your controlled environment. It is was what all censors try to do - control the discussion while creating the illusion of open discussion.

It is the reason the crusaders fled TUG for the safe confines of an environment where they could banish the dissenting opinion. Why else have a Term and Condition that allows you to banish anyone who you feel is not "supporting" the crusade?

But TUG gives you the opportunity to reach more owners. It now is only problematic when you return with your propaganda and tough questions that you would rather not answer - like the one at hand.

And rather than answering the question, you would rather avoid it, and see this thread fall off the front page. You are so transparent.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> To other owners still reading this....Perhaps I was mistaken but I have always thought the whole point of the owners site was to no longer engage in frutile debates with non owners about a resort that has absolutely nothing to do with them. If I am correct shouldnt Tug simply be used at various times to point out that there is in fact an "owners" site available, and when new information is available on that site.
> Otherwise aren't we as owners simply falling back into the same habit of needlessly wasting our time debating with those who ....well....you know



Well.  I'm hurt.  This is quite insulting, considering that all of the recommendations that non-owners have made throughout this thread to help your efforts have been taken:

Moderate your position, don't scream "lawsuit" from the get-go?  Check.

Review the governing documents of your resort to determine owners' rights?  Check.

Demand that your resort's BOD respond in some fashion to your concerns?  Check.

Develop a concrete plan step-by-step to address and/or change your concerns in accordance with the governing documents?  Check.

Hire a qualified attorney?  Check.  (Maybe.  The jury's still out on this one.)

Develop a website for owners to discuss the issues?  Check.

It appears to me that you folks need the non-owners to continue posting their opinions of your responses to Marriott's actions to this thread.  It's our input that's given you direction, whether you take our advice or not and whether you make a complete effort or not.

<Hey look!  Is that Elvis?>


----------



## timeos2

*So far Marriott 5 - Upstarts 0  Anyone see any change soon?*

While I'm certainly not familiar with every site I don't recall a successful owners only site that REQUIRED the people taking part to agree to a party line simply to participate. Every one I've seen allowed anyone who was an owner to join and express any opinion they wished. Then there were one or more groups that were acting in the ways they decided were best and those actions would also be debated by the owners group. But none required that a philosophy or certain approach to the situation be embraced by every owner who simply wanted to join & read what was being proposed or the groups view of the latest news. That seems rather self serving for the group "with the answers" and effectively shuts out a group of owners who may be equally concerned, but does not support that specific approach. 

If it were my group I'd want every owner to feel free to take part, separate from any pledge of support for a particular path to be followed. That's just me and of course anyone can set up a group anyway they see fit. The value of a closed minded group limited to those willing to "take the pledge" may be extremely limited however. I guess we'll see how it turns out.


----------



## Luckybee

Eric...Im going to follow my own advice and not engage with you . I have always felt from the very beginning and have consistently said that non owners have no place in this discussion, and I wont be baited into debating with the few non owners who wish to do so . On this we have always agreed to disagree....your little non owner group of 3 or 4 Marriott can do no wrong cheerleaders have always defended your "right" to jump in and given your reasons for so doing. You're entitled to your opinion as to why you have a place in this discussion . I just dont agree with it ! Have a great evening


----------



## ecwinch

Great. Well let me take this opportunity to take a free shot then.

See, the problem is that your original post was disingenuous. You said that the reason the other site was created was to "not debate with non-owners".

But it was not. It was created so that you could control the conversation. That is the core issue and why it took you almost a year to follow the suggestion made numerous times. 

You attempted to control the conversation here on TUG but were thwarted. It was thwarted by non-owners who had an objective view of the issues, and attempted to point out the shortcomings in your emotional appeal to owners.  It was thwarted by facts, logic, and well-reasoned opposition. So after suffering the "nit-picking" of non-owners you fled for a safer environment where you could control the discussion. That is all you did. Just like the lawyer with a weak case and questionable law that seeks out a favorable venue. As you just admitted in your post.

For I really doubt that there is well-reasoned and balanced discussion of the issues on the owner site. Which is your objective. To control the conversation, something that you were unable to do on TUG. Hopefully some reasonable owner will raise the same issues on that site, and I wonder how long it will take before the "Terms and Conditions" come into play.

Time will tell.

And in the meantime we will await Mark's reply to the question asked. I wonder which will occur first.


----------



## Luckybee

Im always amazed by those who give their opinions as though they are facts. I hope that you are awaiting Marks repsonse for a very long time but of course it is his choice to make. Part of not debating with non owners includes not providing them with any information that they are not entitled to


----------



## ecwinch

No, Luckybee, I do not think that Mark has the courage to answer the call. I think the answer would be far too damning.

I am sure that you have shared that advice with him. 

And your observation is humorous at best. Who on this board does not state their opinion with conviction? Am I the only party that stands accused in that regard? Is it time for a reality check? Something about a kettle, pot, and the color black?

And was that really your last post or your second to the last post? Or would your reply involve "information that I am not entitled too?". 

Extremists always follow that logic: "sorry for your un-educated opinion. There is critical information that you not entitled too.". I can only hope that reasonable owners will see through the facade.

For even from this short dialog, I think reasonable owners can see why the crusaders chose not to continue to debate the issues with non-owners on TUG. That you cannot control the discussion and the merits of your case are weak. 

And just for clarity - this is my opinion.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> Im always amazed by those who give their opinions as though they are facts.



Great, we're in agreement, because I've thought the same thing every time Marksue has posted his opinions throughout this thread.



Luckybee said:


> I hope that you are awaiting Marks repsonse for a very long time but of course it is his choice to make. Part of not debating with non owners includes not providing them with any information that they are not entitled to



I don't know how it could have escaped your notice that the non-owners who have been involved throughout this thread have helped your efforts.  Or maybe, that's too bitter a pill to swallow?  In any event, none of us has said that we are "entitled" to any information, but we're certainly able to dissect the limited information that has been made available and it does not paint a pleasing picture for owners.  We non-owners certainly do not have a vested interest in MAOC's issues, but that's all the more reason for the owners to keep the communication open to all timeshare owners.

Have you considered that it's all of the MAOC owners (and especially those who choose to align themselves with Mark and/or Allan against Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD) who stand to suffer if Mark and Allan continue to dodge the difficult questions?  We non-owners are certainly not taking the risks that Marriott may be driven away from management of our resort, or that Marriott may renege on certain concessions that they've made to this point because their legal culpability is being challenged, or that our collusion with leaders who may be acting inappropriately may impact our future usage at our resort, or that our continued support of those leaders' questionable actions may ultimately lead to our resort's BOD requiring a legal defense which will cost every owner additional fees ...

I really think that the big picture has been overlooked here in the quest to gain whatever small victories this "concerned owners" group may continue to futilely demand in order to save face, and if I was an MAOC owner that would concern me greatly.


----------



## Luckybee

OMG....just as a matter of FACT(as opposed to opinion) and for the benefit of others reading and once again to clarify that I am NOT involved in the concerned owners group other than as an interested and concerned owner(obviously Eric has difficulty with comprehension since Im repeating myself)...I have never spoken with Mark, I have received emails from him , the same emails as those designed for the membership at large...I do not know Mark I have never had the opportunity to give him an opinion/advice  on anything . The only other emails we have shared was recently that we both found out as a result of the new website that we're both going to be in Aruba at the same time and plan to meet with our families and share a drink. The only advice I may share is what type of Chardonnay I like ! 
LOL...I havent changed my opinion on this issue .....from the very beginnig I felt that non owners had no place in this discussion....what Eric are you getting annoyed that no one will play with you anymore ? Perhaps you should buy in to the O.C....maybe the members will let you into the site then....nah....somehow I doubt it....nighty night !


----------



## london

*Thread Was For Aruba Owners*

The initial opening thread was meant for "owners" at this resort, and stated so in the title.

Owners at this resort should have their own website for communicating.

In the end the resort Board of Directors, and Marriott will have a meeting of the minds on how the resort is run, and how to set a budget and maintenance fees.

Unhappy owners, have choices to make, as to whether to remain on owner etc.

The saga will continue for many months to come.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> LOL...I havent changed my opinion on this issue .....from the very beginnig I felt that non owners had no place in this discussion....what Eric are you getting annoyed that no one will play with you anymore ? Perhaps you should buy in to the O.C....maybe the members will let you into the site then....nah....somehow I doubt it....nighty night !



Only confirming what I have said. The point is to control the conversation and not share all the information with the owners. Only the information that the "crusaders" approve of. That sounds like a great site to obtain unbiased information from that can be counted on.

And if someone dissents - bye bye. And if I was to become an owner - as you admit - I would not be free to express my opinion on the site. So it is not about discussing the issues with non-owners - it is about controlling the conversation.

If reasonable owners are comfortable with that environment - I can only say then you reap what you sow.


----------



## modoaruba

I still don't get it as to the harsh criticism the group is getting.
The passion that goes into the posts of Eric and Sue surprises me especially since they are non owners.I see your views clearer than you attribute me to.
But also a lot of your statements are unfounded  based on your interpretations of the posts you read as opposed to fact.
My passion is not so much for siding with the group as it is for wanting owners to be able to get a perspective as to what co-owners are saying on the site without outsiders trying to sway them away.
Eric,when you say that you are not,it's the tone one reads in your posts sorry to say.
Sue,I understand whole heartedly as to what you are saying but your passion is above and beyond my comprehension-IMO
The posts of Eric and Sue  comes off as- be carefull signing into the group because of what MIGHT happen with their personal info,how did they get your info to notify you, and if you do sign on and agree with the group then you MAY get in trouble.Who cares?Let it be.
I understand that there are rules as you guys state, but I myself have always been idealistic.A trait that is my own downfall.

The point is that sometimes you got to follow your gut and stand up to what you feel is right regardless.If there are consequences,oh well.

We will always disagree and that's OK.
We are going to get ready in a short while to go back to Aruba.This trip will be very interesting since more owners are aware of all this.
We will still have a great time ,I know it.
I'll be the one with the Yankees T-shirt.


----------



## ecwinch

Modo - I just do not like to see honest people mislead in supporting the personal agendas of a few. I see no need to repeat verbatim the specific issues in that regard. 

The crusaders have their own site now. I would encourage them to follow LuckyBee's advice. When the crusaders have strengthened their argument to the point that it withstand the critique of the dreaded "non-owners", I will be here. Or when that special "owner" only info we have been hearing about for a year now ripens.

Because that is the only response that has been raised in regard to the questions asked. Ignore those questions from the infidels. It is the ostrich effect.

I am sure at some point in time a reasonable owner that has participated in the site will seek a more balanced discussion of the issues. I will be here to help them when they arrive. Toward that end I would recommend that every AOC owner should register for this site. Do not worry about the registration or T&C. I am sure that an open discussion of the issues is possible for all that are interested. No need to speculate on that which can be easily proven.

Until then we will await Mark to clear up the e-mail issue as LoveAruba suggested.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> I still don't get it as to the harsh criticism the group is getting.
> The passion that goes into the posts of Eric and Sue surprises me especially since they are non owners.I see your views clearer than you attribute me to.
> But also a lot of your statements are unfounded  based on your interpretations of the posts you read as opposed to fact.
> My passion is not so much for siding with the group as it is for wanting owners to be able to get a perspective as to what co-owners are saying on the site without outsiders trying to sway them away.
> Eric,when you say that you are not,it's the tone one reads in your posts sorry to say.
> Sue,I understand whole heartedly as to what you are saying but your passion is above and beyond my comprehension-IMO
> The posts of Eric and Sue  comes off as- be carefull signing into the group because of what MIGHT happen with their personal info,how did they get your info to notify you, and if you do sign on and agree with the group then you MAY get in trouble.Who cares?Let it be.
> I understand that there are rules as you guys state, but I myself have always been idealistic.A trait that is my own downfall.
> 
> The point is that sometimes you got to follow your gut and stand up to what you feel is right regardless.If there are consequences,oh well.
> 
> We will always disagree and that's OK.



Yep, OK by me as well that we disagree.  Life would be boring if everybody always agreed.

Sometimes it's okay to take a chance and say oh well to the consequences, Modo, but I just wouldn't be comfortable taking chances on future usage of a timeshare that we worked hard to be able to afford and want to continue enjoying for a good many years.  The fact that this thread began with a rallying cry for a lawsuit and has continued with the theme of protecting owners' rights, only reinforces the thought that there is more than enough incentive to make sure that every i is dotted and every t is crossed.  On all sides.

I don't know that I'm any more "passionate" about what I've written here than anyone else is about what they've written.  Some of us like to use more words than others do, that's all.  Plus, just as MAOC owners have read this thread and joined the "concerned owners" group, there have been a number of MAOC owners who have read here and are grateful that the opposing views are also being made public.  I know it's true because I've received private messages saying so.

I'm not worried about which side is right and which is wrong - what concerns me most is that any owner should be able to find the concrete information as well as the educated opinions that will help him/her reach an informed decision about all aspects of an MAOC ownership.  I believe this thread serves that purpose to a greater extent than the group's website, because this is an open forum that does not require a statement of support either way.

Online communication is sometimes so difficult, but I do appreciate, Modo,  that you eventually attempt to at least understand the meaning in the words you read even when you recognize that the screen name is of someone who usually disagrees with your view.  That's commendable.  



modoaruba said:


> We are going to get ready in a short while to go back to Aruba.This trip will be very interesting since more owners are aware of all this.
> We will still have a great time ,I know it.
> I'll be the one with the Yankees T-shirt.



Enjoy your trip, safe travels, and wear that shirt proudly.  Heck, get a hat too.  Your team certainly deserves the respect.  (This year.  Don't forget there is always next year.)


----------



## oldone

i am an owner and i've now tried to read through most of these posts.  i do not want to put all my personal information into the new private web site but would like to know if there is really anything more than what is already mentioned here.  i've seen the renovations and they are good- the money was well spent and the resort is looking great.  of course i don't want to have lots of large extra payments but i feel that marriott has explained where all the money went.  can anyone who has been on the owners site tell me what more there could possibly be that could make me want to put in all the personal info that they are asking for?  i'm afraid that they will just cause the fees to go up more because of all the legal costs.  i don't see what the concerned group is trying to do- they talk about transparency but i can't even get onto their site unless i'm willing to go along with them and support what they are saying which may cost me more in maintenance fees in the long run.  i don't use the internet much but when i heard about this down in aruba i was curious.  the feeling that i got from the owner who told me about this was a fear of legal costs and that is my concern too.  good money after bad.


----------



## SueDonJ

Well, oldone, you've asked the Million Dollar Question!

IF there is in fact concrete evidence that would prove wrongdoing on the part of Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD to the extent that the owners' past fees could be reduced/refunded and their future fees wouldn't be impacted by legal defense costs, wouldn't you think that the evidence would have been produced long before the situation has gotten to the point where it is now?

Most of the timeshare-savvy folks who have participated in this discussion have reached a consensus that IF such evidence exists, a qualified attorney would have suggested that it be made public to Marriott et al long before now.  It doesn't appear that's the case.

But the efforts of this "concerned owners" group appear to have shifted over the last year from demanding monetary recourse from Marriott et al for alleged wrongdoings that have cost owners, to efforts that will hopefully unseat certain current members of the BOD and voting in others who will be "more transparent."  It remains to be seen whether those efforts will be worth the further price you owners might have to pay, and exactly how a "more transparent" BOD would impact your ownership.

Of course it's possible that the intended results of this group's efforts which have been stated in this open forum are all a smokescreen, and something entirely different is in the works over on the group's website which requires your personal information and declaration of support upon registration.  Hopefully you'll get the Million Dollar Answer from a member of that website before you have to make any sort of public pledge to their efforts (whatever they may be.)


----------



## london

*Well Said*



SueDonJ said:


> Well, oldone, you've asked the Million Dollar Question!
> 
> IF there is in fact concrete evidence that would prove wrongdoing on the part of Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD to the extent that the owners' past fees could be reduced/refunded and their future fees wouldn't be impacted by legal defense costs, wouldn't you think that the evidence would have been produced long before the situation has gotten to the point where it is now?
> 
> Most of the timeshare-savvy folks who have participated in this discussion have reached a consensus that IF such evidence exists, a qualified attorney would have suggested that it be made public to Marriott et al long before now.  It doesn't appear that's the case.
> 
> But the efforts of this "concerned owners" group appear to have shifted over the last year from demanding monetary recourse from Marriott et al for alleged wrongdoings that have cost owners, to efforts that will hopefully unseat certain current members of the BOD and voting in others who will be "more transparent."  It remains to be seen whether those efforts will be worth the further price you owners might have to pay, and exactly how a "more transparent" BOD would impact your ownership.
> 
> Of course it's possible that the intended results of this group's efforts which have been stated in this open forum are all a smokescreen, and something entirely different is in the works over on the group's website which requires your personal information and declaration of support upon registration.  Hopefully you'll get the Million Dollar Answer from a member of that website before you have to make any sort of public pledge to their efforts (whatever they may be.)



Well said, you have summarized this matter in a precise and thought out manner.


----------



## Luckybee

oldone said:


> i am an owner and i've now tried to read through most of these posts.  i do not want to put all my personal information into the new private web site but would like to know if there is really anything more than what is already mentioned here.  i've seen the renovations and they are good- the money was well spent and the resort is looking great.  of course i don't want to have lots of large extra payments but i feel that marriott has explained where all the money went.  can anyone who has been on the owners site tell me what more there could possibly be that could make me want to put in all the personal info that they are asking for?  i'm afraid that they will just cause the fees to go up more because of all the legal costs.  i don't see what the concerned group is trying to do- they talk about transparency but i can't even get onto their site unless i'm willing to go along with them and support what they are saying which may cost me more in maintenance fees in the long run.  i don't use the internet much but when i heard about this down in aruba i was curious.  the feeling that i got from the owner who told me about this was a fear of legal costs and that is my concern too.  good money after bad.



 Might I suggest that you go to the website, and on the front page of that site(before you have to enter any info) both the email address and phone number for Allan Cohen are prominently placed for owners who have questions about the info on the site and any other questions you may have about the intentions of the group.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> Might I suggest that you go to the website, and on the front page of that site(before you have to enter any info) both the email address and phone number for Allan Cohen are prominently placed for owners who have questions about the info on the site and any other questions you may have about the intentions of the group.



That's actually a good idea, oldone, to ask Allan point-blank THE evidence question and see if you get THE yes or no answer.  There haven't been any reports of success with that particular strategy, but anything's possible.

Of course, you might want to limit your contact with Allan to a telephone call, because you're already uneasy with releasing your personal contact information and the questions surrounding how secure your email address would be with Allan are still unanswered.


----------



## oldone

thanks for your suggestions- i may try to contact allen.  i still have mixed feelings about getting in touch with him because of my concerns that they may cause us to have higher fees in the future because of all the legal stuff going on.  i will express this to him if i contact him.  i have to say i can't see what they think they have hidden on their web site that will change my mind but i will see.  why are they being so mysterious about all this?  it is very strange in my opinion.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> That's actually a good idea, oldone, to ask Allan point-blank THE evidence question and see if you get THE yes or no answer.  There haven't been any reports of success with that particular strategy, but anything's possible.
> 
> Of course, you might want to limit your contact with Allan to a telephone call, because you're already uneasy with releasing your personal contact information and the questions surrounding how secure your email address would be with Allan are still unanswered.



That's exactly what I mean by stearing.
"Limit your contact"-you might get a disease.
You're "already uneasy"-stearing the witness.
"Security of your email"-watch your wallet.
Be real careful.

Do you see my point of view?


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> What is the big deal if owners join in order to get information which otherwise they would not have.
> They can at any time delist if not satisfied or got frightened through your posts.
> Registering and viewing does not place the owner in a compromising situation as far as I can see.There is always a way out and the info given to register would disappear.
> The information that I got on the site is very enlightening.I can use that info to conduct my own research and so far it looks legitimate to me.


No one cares if there is a separate site, several of us suggested it and it is appropriate to do so.  IMO, this is not the correct way to do so and there are more problems than potential help with how it has been done so far but it is what it is.  To be honest, I would not personally be comfortable that my info was safe in this situation and would not be comfortable that any such info was truly removed but YMMV.  



Luckybee said:


> To other owners still reading this....Perhaps I was mistaken but I have always thought the whole point of the owners site was to no longer engage in futile debates with non owners about a resort that has absolutely nothing to do with them. If I am correct shouldnt Tug simply be used at various times to point out that there is in fact an "owners" site available, and when new information is available on that site.
> Otherwise aren't we as owners simply falling back into the same habit of needlessly wasting our time debating with those who ....well....you know


As they say, don't let the door hit you in the ... (you know), LOL. As Sue points out, there has been a LOT of great suggestions by non owners that that resort.  



Luckybee said:


> Eric...Im going to follow my own advice and not engage with you . I have always felt from the very beginning and have consistently said that non owners have no place in this discussion, and I wont be baited into debating with the few non owners who wish to do so . On this we have always agreed to disagree....your little non owner group of 3 or 4 Marriott can do no wrong cheerleaders have always defended your "right" to jump in and given your reasons for so doing. You're entitled to your opinion as to why you have a place in this discussion . I just dont agree with it ! Have a great evening


This shows how little you understand about the overall discussion.  I can't recall a single Marriott cheerleader post but even if there is one or two I don't recall, that as certainly not been a predominant theme.  Not automatically agreeing and not blindly accepting certain positions is not automatically a vote for the other side.  Unfortunately I do currently find myself rooting for Marriott at this point because I think that a handful of zealots have been able to make Marriott the sane and believable position after so much gibberish.



Luckybee said:


> Im always amazed by those who give their opinions as though they are facts. I hope that you are awaiting Marks repsonse for a very long time but of course it is his choice to make. Part of not debating with non owners includes not providing them with any information that they are not entitled to


I don't recall any facts from either side other than those Marriott and the BOD have posted.  Everything else comes down to a former BOD's word and the fact that there is a large SA.  



london said:


> The initial opening thread was meant for "owners" at this resort, and stated so in the title.
> 
> Owners at this resort should have their own website for communicating.
> 
> In the end the resort Board of Directors, and Marriott will have a meeting of the minds on how the resort is run, and how to set a budget and maintenance fees.
> 
> Unhappy owners, have choices to make, as to whether to remain on owner etc.
> 
> The saga will continue for many months to come.


Overall I would agree with your assessment on the actions and likely outcomes.  Also, I believe the thread title was changed at some point and the "Read if an Owner" was not included initially but I don't have all replies back far enough to be certain on that issue plus I don't believe an OP has the right to install that requirement of the rules of TUG are followed.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> That's exactly what I mean by stearing.
> "Limit your contact"-you might get a disease.
> You're "already uneasy"-stearing the witness.
> "Security of your email"-watch your wallet.
> Be real careful.
> 
> Do you see my point of view?



Yes I do, but I think that everyone who participates in this discussion has tried to "steer" the readers to their viewpoint.  What I'm doing isn't any different - I've chosen my words very carefully to reflect my opinion (formed over time based on all that's been related in this thread) that there may be risks to an MAOC owner who chooses to register on the site.

Your opinion is that the private website is beneficial to MAOC owners and registration to it does not present any risk.  My opinion is that this thread and any other public information is more beneficial if the goal is to educate all MAOC owners, and the past behavior of certain principals on that website could present risks to those who choose to align with them for future efforts.

Do you expect everyone to agree with your opinion?  I don't.  And I haven't said that owners shouldn't register on the website or that any inherent risks might not be worth taking for an owner.  All of the owners have to determine the risk factor for themselves, but how can they if they are not even aware that the possibility exists?


----------



## ecwinch

Sue,

Steering is only permitted in this thread when the "crusaders" do it. You think after 2000+ posts the ignorant non-owners would realize that this is the "crusaders" thread. 

Just like that "special" information that non-owners cannot see because we will melt like that scene in Indiana Jones with the Ark of Covenant. 

So we must just stew in our ignorance.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> That's exactly what I mean by stearing.
> "Limit your contact"-you might get a disease.
> You're "already uneasy"-stearing the witness.
> "Security of your email"-watch your wallet.
> Be real careful.
> 
> Do you see my point of view?



Is your point is that Sue should not make suggestions to other TUG members?
Or is it that non-owners should not make suggestions to AOC owners?

I see people make suggestions to other members all the time. I thought that was what TUG was about. Are those posters also "stearing" the witness?

It is starting to seem that you are concerned that an owner might learn something here and then ask salient question on the owner site. God forbid that would happen.

Like the e-mail address question that Mark is avoiding. I wonder if he has the courage to answer that question over on the owner site. Hopefully a reasonable owner will ask that question. But then it might get them booted off.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> Sue,
> 
> Steering is only permitted in this thread when the "crusaders" do it. You think after 2000+ posts the ignorant non-owners would realize that this is the "crusaders" thread.
> 
> Just like that "special" information that non-owners cannot see because we will melt like that scene in Indiana Jones with the Ark of Covenant.
> 
> So we must just stew in our ignorance.



But look who melted,it was the bad guys 

At this point it's time to say:WHATEVER!!!


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> But look who melted,it was the bad guys
> 
> At this point it's time to say:WHATEVER!!!



Your post only demonstrates how ineffectual the "Crusaders" were in having the conversation here on TUG and why they had to flee to the confines of your insular environment.

For like a religious crusade  - you had to accept one major tenet on faith only - that Marriott is money grubbing corporation that wants to stick it to t/s owners and will go to any extent (lying, violating contracts, cover-ups, election manipulation, removing Allan from the Board) to maximize their profits.

When that tenet is subject to objective review - it crumbles. For it ignores the actions that Marriott has taken - which cost them money - in order to try to make this situation right. Like paying for 48% of the roof replacement.

But this is not about the resort. It is and always has been about Allan getting his revenge for the way they treated him after his years of dutiful service. It omits one key issue. That he was on the Board for a number of years when all these alleged abuses were taking place. It was only after he saw that he going to be forced off the board due to term limits that he started to question things. 

How many years did he walk by the Hertz desk - never questioning the business arrangement?

How many years was he on the board before he started to see problems caused by the roof? If the leaking caused so much damage to the resort and increased maintenance problems, why did he not see that? He was the Board President.

Why did he vote for the separation from the Surf Club when he knew that would only result in increased costs to the owners?

By his own admission to me - he was asleep at the wheel. Is that really the type of leadership the AOC wants for the future?

I hope that reasonable owners will see this situation for exactly what it is. A misguided attempt to restore Allan to power. This is not about transparency, it is about revenge. For the owners I only hope that it does not result in huge legal costs at the resort as the board has to fend off lawsuits from the crusaders. Your resounding victory on the mailing list should only indicate how problematic that issue may become. Has anyone asked the AOC board what the legal expenses have been for the past year? That is owner money that is being spent and does absolutely nothing to improve the resort. Instead it is probably going to be spent building a new pool at some Aruban lawyers mansion.

As always JMO.


----------



## vincenzi

ecwinch said:


> Your post only demonstrates how ineffectual the "Crusaders" were in having the conversation here on TUG and why they had to flee to the confines of your insular environment.
> 
> For like a religious crusade  - you had to accept one major tenet on faith only - that Marriott is money grubbing corporation that wants to stick it to t/s owners and will go to any extent (lying, violating contracts, cover-ups, election manipulation, removing Allan from the Board) to maximize their profits.
> 
> When that tenet is subject to objective review - it crumbles. For it ignores the actions that Marriott has taken - which cost them money - in order to try to make this situation right. Like paying for 48% of the roof replacement.
> 
> But this is not about the resort. It is and always has been about Allan getting his revenge for the way they treated him after his years of dutiful service. It omits one key issue. That he was on the Board for a number of years when all these alleged abuses were taking place. It was only after he saw that he going to be forced off the board due to term limits that he started to question things.
> 
> How many years did he walk by the Hertz desk - never questioning the business arrangement?
> 
> How many years was he on the board before he started to see problems caused by the roof? If the leaking caused so much damage to the resort and increased maintenance problems, why did he not see that? He was the Board President.
> 
> Why did he vote for the separation from the Surf Club when he knew that would only result in increased costs to the owners?
> 
> By his own admission to me - he was asleep at the wheel. Is that really the type of leadership the AOC wants for the future?
> 
> I hope that reasonable owners will see this situation for exactly what it is. A misguided attempt to restore Allan to power. This is not about transparency, it is about revenge. For the owners I only hope that it does not result in huge legal costs at the resort as the board has to fend off lawsuits from the crusaders. Your resounding victory on the mailing list should only indicate how problematic that issue may become. Has anyone asked the AOC board what the legal expenses have been for the past year? That is owner money that is being spent and does absolutely nothing to improve the resort. Instead it is probably going to be spent building a new pool at some Aruban lawyers mansion.
> 
> As always JMO.



I consider myself a reasonable owner.  The thought of "restoring Allan to power" has never crossed my mind.  To me, it has always been an issue between Marriott and my husband and me.  

Revenge..."to inflict punishment for injury" in our situation is ridiculous.  Life is too short for revenge.  

Am I a "Crusader"?  Absolutely not. Those terms are too dramatic as far as I am concerned.  

Personally, I am very happy with our Marriott timeshares in Aruba and in Hilton Head.  We have created memories that will last for a lifetime.  We purchased our timeshare in Hilton Head from an owner through TUG.  TUG, thank you very much! (we saved some bucks).  But, I am very disappointed that Marriott did not fully disclose all of the pertinent information about our two weeks that we purchased in Aruba.  To me, it was not ethical. I am not a lawyer.  I am just  a humble owner.  

I have joined the "concerned owners" website.  It is very informative.


----------



## ecwinch

As informative as it is, I think it is important to point out that you are only hearing one side of the story. This why in a legal environment, both sides of a case are presented. If only one side is presented, you cannot reach a fair decision on the information presented.

You can easily test that theory by asking the question about Allan providing e-mail addresses to Mark and see what the response is.

But thank you for sharing your personal experience. In this thread we respect the fact that individuals have different opinions.


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> As informative as it is, I think it is important to point out that you are only hearing one side of the story. This why in a legal environment, both sides of a case are presented. If only one side is presented, you cannot reach a fair decision on the information presented.
> 
> You can easily test that theory by asking the question about Allan providing e-mail addresses to Mark and see what the response is.
> 
> But thank you for sharing your personal experience. In this thread we respect the fact that individuals have different opinions.



First of all the group's site information is based on facts.
Don't demean Vincenzi's discovery as to what they read.
You harp on e-mail addresses and how they were procured.
This diverts attention away from discovery of facts.

I myself have surfed the web and found glimpses of history of the AOC site from Aruba government sites.FACT!

So if Vincenzi is now wondering if there is another side to the story I will give the web site of Aruba's hotel history.

There is no other side.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> First of all the group's site information is based on facts.
> Don't demean Vincenzi's discovery as to what they read.
> You harp on e-mail addresses and how they were procured.
> This diverts attention away from discovery of facts.
> 
> I myself have surfed the web and found glimpses of history of the AOC site from Aruba government sites.FACT!
> 
> So if Vincenzi is now wondering if there is another side to the story I will give the web site of Aruba's hotel history.
> 
> There is no other side.



Too funny. Is the world flat also?  Do you live in this world where is just one side to an issue or just visit it from time to time? Does it have a river called Denial in it? Is there a timeshare resort there I can exchange into - being a non-owner and all. 

And I did not say that your information was not factual. The problem is that it is likely incomplete (I cannot say this with authority, for my non-owner eyes would burn in the presence of such blinding facts). 

It would be like creating a web site supporting Bernie Madoff for AOC Board President. I would just put up there "Former SEC chairman". See that is factual.  But does it present the complete picture?

And I only harp on an issue that LoveAruba suggested would be cleared up. Mark made his lame attempt that was so transparent that my teenage daughter saw right through it. 

There is the only reason it has not been refuted. Anyone can see that.


----------



## Luckybee

I keep saying Im not getting in to this...and I wont get into the substantive issues but here clearly Eric you have totally misrepresented what LoveAruba has said and I dont know if she's still even reading this pointless nonsense to call you on it.

"For anyone who does not want contact, they can simply send an email to Allan asking him to put them on a do not email list. Marksue will have to address retiredtotravel's concern on asking him to be a friend in facebook. Retiredtotravel, there is one person who has contacted Allan asking to be taken off the email list because they did not want to be contacted, I'm not sure if it is you but I did take care of the request so if you are that person you will not be contacted again. "
And "If this user wanted to be taken off all lists related to the website, I have offered him advise. If Marksue has his email do not assume it came from Allan. Mark will have to answer that question. I've received lots of emails from people who I never gave my address to so I am not going to accuse Mark or Allan of doing that. I would also suggest that they address it with who they believe the offenders are."

This is a far cry from "And I only harp on an issue that LoveAruba suggested would be cleared up", that you attribute to her. She said that it was up to Mark to address that issue, in other words she wasnt going to.  That is not the same thing as saying that Mark WAS going to address it. She doesnt speak for Mark anymore than you or I do. As i said before I truly hope he doesnt respond but it is totally his decision. These and other issues now have a much more appropriate place to be dealt with....and we owners like it that way ....far better than feeding those whose motives are far less clear


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> I keep saying Im not getting in to this...and I wont get into the substantive issues but here clearly Eric you have totally misrepresented what LoveAruba has said and I dont know if she's still even reading this pointless nonsense to call you on it.
> 
> "For anyone who does not want contact, they can simply send an email to Allan asking him to put them on a do not email list. Marksue will have to address retiredtotravel's concern on asking him to be a friend in facebook. Retiredtotravel, there is one person who has contacted Allan asking to be taken off the email list because they did not want to be contacted, I'm not sure if it is you but I did take care of the request so if you are that person you will not be contacted again. "
> And "If this user wanted to be taken off all lists related to the website, I have offered him advise. If Marksue has his email do not assume it came from Allan. Mark will have to answer that question. I've received lots of emails from people who I never gave my address to so I am not going to accuse Mark or Allan of doing that. I would also suggest that they address it with who they believe the offenders are."
> 
> This is a far cry from "And I only harp on an issue that LoveAruba suggested would be cleared up", that you attribute to her. She said that it was up to Mark to address that issue, in other words she wasnt going to.  That is not the same thing as saying that Mark WAS going to address it. She doesnt speak for Mark anymore than you or I do. As i said before I truly hope he doesnt respond but it is totally his decision. These and other issues now have a much more appropriate place to be dealt with....and we owners like it that way ....far better than feeding those whose motives are far less clear



You are only trying to rationalize why the question is not being answered. The  question is still out there and as I said, it is pretty clear why it not being answered.

Why else you do keep returning to this thread with these weak rationalizations - when you have rebuked others for doing so and have said you will not do so?

The answer to both is obvious. And as a lawyer you know that.


----------



## Luckybee

Weak rationalizations????? Now you're not even making sense. Lets see, ...I told you but perhaps you misread it..i'll give you the benefit of possible miscommunication...that I was only responding/returning because:
1. You clearly misrepresented what LoveAruba said(which btw you glossed over)
2. That Lovearuba never suggested that "your" concerns" would be cleared up as you stated she had said
3. That neither Lovearuba, nor you nor I speak for Mark and that he would make his own decisions about whether to respond
4. That I hoped Mark would not answer this question nor any others that you or other NON owners ask on this board
5. That the place to deal with "owner" issues is the "owners" board

Weak rationalizations??? Huh???? Where was I attempting to rationalize, anything at all...not weak or strong simply non exsistent.there is absolutely nothing I have any need to attempt to "rationalize..I wasnt explaining nor defending nor justifying anything whatsoever and somehow you read that out of my post...there would have been no reason for my doing so..wow I was right...there are those on this board who simply wish to critique anyone who is a concerned Ocean Club owner for absolutely everything....and you wonder why there are those of us who question your motivation?

And where have I ever "rebuked" anyone for returning with "weak rationalizations" The only thing I have said about anyone commenting is that I personally dont feel that this is where the conversations, discussions etc. about what will/will not  and should/should not happen at the oc should take place and that I personally dont feel that non owners have any place in the conversations discussions etc. I think I've been pretty consistent in that position. But rebuked anyone for commenting....I dont think so. First you misquote Lovearuba...now me....you really should be a tad more careful about your references to the words of others....now that you can consider a rebuke!


----------



## lovearuba

*appreciation*

Hi
I am watching this thread but not as much as I previously did because it no longer serves the purpose we wanted it to serve. Its become the Sue and Eric thread.

There is another forum for owners and they are actively sharing information with each other. I have also provided information to owners on how to get their names removed from our email list. Some folks just want to remain on the list to get updates but do not want to formally register for the website. We are accommodating that request.

I do the registration approvals and I remove information for owners that ask to be removed. These are folks that did not formally register but are receiving emails asking them to register because they previously signed up to be contacted. If they email me and ask to be removed, I permanently removed their contact information.

For folks that are registered, they have the capability to either ask me to remove them or to delete their accounts themselves. 

There are a few owners that have asked to be removed from the list. I ask no questions just delete the information. Most folks will indicate why they are asking to be removed and for those the majority of them are removing their information because they have sold their units. Most of those indicate it was because of the maintenance fees. 

We are actively publicizing the website and for those owners that would like to help the cause one of our owners has prepared cards which they will provide. The information is on the front page of the website. www.aocconcernedowners.com

If any owner has any concerns we address those concerns because we do not want anyone to have any concerns related to privacy issues. I am unable to spend any more time answering to Sue and Eric because I feel they are not in support of our efforts and clearly misinterpret anything I or any supporter of the site has to say. We are not a small group as they would like owners to believe and we are working for something we believe in.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> Hi
> I am watching this thread but not as much as I previously did because it no longer serves the purpose we wanted it to serve. Its become the Sue and Eric thread.
> 
> There is another forum for owners and they are actively sharing information with each other. I have also provided information to owners on how to get their names removed from our email list. Some folks just want to remain on the list to get updates but do not want to formally register for the website. We are accommodating that request.
> 
> I do the registration approvals and I remove information for owners that ask to be removed. These are folks that did not formally register but are receiving emails asking them to register because they previously signed up to be contacted. If they email me and ask to be removed, I permanently removed their contact information.
> 
> For folks that are registered, they have the capability to either ask me to remove them or to delete their accounts themselves.
> 
> There are a few owners that have asked to be removed from the list. I ask no questions just delete the information. Most folks will indicate why they are asking to be removed and for those the majority of them are removing their information because they have sold their units. Most of those indicate it was because of the maintenance fees.
> 
> We are actively publicizing the website and for those owners that would like to help the cause one of our owners has prepared cards which they will provide. The information is on the front page of the website. www.aocconcernedowners.com
> 
> If any owner has any concerns we address those concerns because we do not want anyone to have any concerns related to privacy issues. I am unable to spend any more time answering to Sue and Eric because I feel they are not in support of our efforts and clearly misinterpret anything I or any supporter of the site has to say. We are not a small group as they would like owners to believe and we are working for something we believe in.


That is a very informative, appropriate and considerate post.  Thank you.


----------



## modoaruba

*from the funny flat world*



ecwinch said:


> Too funny. Is the world flat also?  Do you live in this world where is just one side to an issue or just visit it from time to time? Does it have a river called Denial in it? Is there a timeshare resort there I can exchange into - being a non-owner and all.
> 
> And I did not say that your information was not factual. The problem is that it is likely incomplete (I cannot say this with authority, for my non-owner eyes would burn in the presence of such blinding facts).
> 
> It would be like creating a web site supporting Bernie Madoff for AOC Board President. I would just put up there "Former SEC chairman". See that is factual.  But does it present the complete picture?
> 
> And I only harp on an issue that LoveAruba suggested would be cleared up. Mark made his lame attempt that was so transparent that my teenage daughter saw right through it.
> 
> There is the only reason it has not been refuted. Anyone can see that.



Sounds to me like pointless ranting to me. There is no sense in refuting.
I would encourage Mark not to respond to any questions posed just for the reason of principle at this point.
This is not a thread of The Inquisition which a few think it is.
If you would like to continue and provide further advertisement for the group,keep it coming.As I stated before,the group appreciates the recruits you provide them.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> Hi
> I am watching this thread but not as much as I previously did because it no longer serves the purpose we wanted it to serve. Its become the Sue and Eric thread.
> 
> There is another forum for owners and they are actively sharing information with each other. I have also provided information to owners on how to get their names removed from our email list. Some folks just want to remain on the list to get updates but do not want to formally register for the website. We are accommodating that request.
> 
> I do the registration approvals and I remove information for owners that ask to be removed. These are folks that did not formally register but are receiving emails asking them to register because they previously signed up to be contacted. If they email me and ask to be removed, I permanently removed their contact information.
> 
> For folks that are registered, they have the capability to either ask me to remove them or to delete their accounts themselves.
> 
> There are a few owners that have asked to be removed from the list. I ask no questions just delete the information. Most folks will indicate why they are asking to be removed and for those the majority of them are removing their information because they have sold their units. Most of those indicate it was because of the maintenance fees.
> 
> We are actively publicizing the website and for those owners that would like to help the cause one of our owners has prepared cards which they will provide. The information is on the front page of the website. www.aocconcernedowners.com
> 
> If any owner has any concerns we address those concerns because we do not want anyone to have any concerns related to privacy issues. I am unable to spend any more time answering to Sue and Eric because I feel they are not in support of our efforts and clearly misinterpret anything I or any supporter of the site has to say. We are not a small group as they would like owners to believe and we are working for something we believe in.



Admittedly, I'm not in support of your group's efforts against Marriott et al as they've been related here.  But that's not because of some vague personal vendetta against the people who are involved in those efforts; it's because I've reviewed the myriad communications from Marriott et al (those that are posted at my-vacationclub.com's MAOC website as well as those that have been reprinted here) and have formed my own opinion that their actions have not been incorrect.  And that's what it has always boiled down to, for me - if Marriott et all has been incorrect, if they have breached the contractual obligations as they're specified in the ownership documents, then your group should prove it and move on.  If they haven't been incorrect, which is how the situation appears to me, then you owners have to accept things and decide if your ownership still makes sense to you.  I don't see any other choices, and dragging this thing out forever in the hope that Marriott et al will appease you by allowing you to circumvent contractual terms just to keep you quiet doesn't make any sense at all.

As far as your private website, I've said repeatedly that I couldn't care less if it exists or if owners make the decision to support your efforts through registering on the website.   That's their choice to make, certainly it's not mine to make for them.  However, since the website's inception several of us non-owners have pointed out logistical problems with it that you have since corrected.  One example is the wording about the terms of support that was provided by m in this thread and added to the website's homepage, after it was pointed out in this thread that anyone who did register there might be risking having his/her ownership/contact information submitted in support of any future legal action taken by your group against Marriott et al.  So that's another instance, in addition to these already compiled, of a non-owner in this thread helping your group to focus your efforts correctly.

It's true, from the outset MAOC owners have stood to suffer/benefit more than non-owners from the issues surrounding the resort.  But for non-owners, there is value here in watching how/why owners might approach solutions to timeshare problems, as well as in how/why Marriott et al responds to the group's allegations and actions.  I am certainly more educated about timeshare contracts and my MVCI ownership than I was before becoming involved in this thread, and expect that's true for all of us.

Now could we please stop with the "this thread no longer serves a purpose" and "It's useless to post here any longer but you've driven me to it" (paraphrased) nonsense for once and for all?  This thread has served several purposes since its inception and every person who has contributed to it has strengthened this group's effort,  whether our individual posts have served to reinforce or counter the ideas/opinions/statements that are contained herein.

I plan on participating in this thread for as long as it exists because I am fascinated by the subject, and because I expect to learn even more.  I hope that we're all still here at the resolution between MAOC owners and Marriott et al, because we each bring something to the table.  But most of all, as I've said throughout the thread, I hope that MAOC owners are able to go through all of this turmoil and come out of it at the end with the same good feelings for their resort and vacations that convinced them to purchase in the first place.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> ... Its become the Sue and Eric thread. ...



Now where do I pick up my recognition button?  If it's going to be All About Me, I want everybody to know it.


----------



## Dave M

*In my capacity as moderator...*

I have tried to stay out of this thread as much as possible and I don't take sides on the issues related to this thread. I have allowed considerable leeway in interpreting the TUB BBS *Be Courteous* Posting Rule in moderating this thread.

However, I am now issuing a stern warning to all of those who are at each other with accusations of rationalization, ranting, rebuking, incomplete or missing responses,  caustic comebacks, general sarcasm, *etc.*

It matters not to me how valid your comments are. If you have something useful to add to this thread, please do so. If you have a question, seeking more info or a clarification to something added after this point, feel free to ask your question _*politely*_. However, *if I judge that you have ignored this warning, you can expect a suspension of your posting privileges here at TUG with no additional warning.* Failing to read this warning or arguing that your post doesn't fall into any of the listed out-of-bounds comments (including "etc.") will get you nowhere.

Thus, please read any message that you draft very carefully before posting it here.

*Any comments regarding this warning will be deleted in accordance with the Posting Rule regarding making comments about moderating.*

Dave M
BBS Moderator


----------



## Sunbum

[_Message deleted. See my post above._. Dave M, BBS Moderator]


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Sounds to me like pointless ranting to me. There is no sense in refuting.
> I would encourage Mark not to respond to any questions posed just for the reason of principle at this point.
> This is not a thread of The Inquisition which a few think it is.
> If you would like to continue and provide further advertisement for the group,keep it coming.As I stated before,the group appreciates the recruits you provide them.



And as I have stated, I am comfortable with helping you in that regard. Regardless, the more owners that reach there from here, the more that know there is a source for the rest of the story.


----------



## griffer331

I have just received my notice of an ammendment to the by laws of the Ocean Club to allow my personal information to be given out.  Of course I voted not to allow it to be given out but the more interesting thing in the letter was it has cost the owners $90,000 to fight the lawsuit.

I'm afraid that"s going to be a drop in the bucket if this continues.


----------



## SueDonJ

$90K (and counting?)    Ouch.  How does a developer/management company go about being compensated for such costs that they've incurred in support of protecting owners' rights?  Maybe somebody here who has been through a legal resolution at their resort(s) can offer some insight?

griffer331, were you provided with the actual wording of the proposed amendment?  Is it a blanket release that will allow any owner(s) now and in the future to be able to obtain a list of owners' personal contact information?  Or is it limited to the one request made by this "concerned owners" group?


----------



## Dave M

As posted, Marriott has been compensated for its costs and/or the costs to hire attorneys: "...it has cost the *owners* $90,000 to fight the lawsuit."


----------



## SueDonJ

But that's what I'm asking, Dave.  I'm reading it as, Marriott has incurred that much in legal fees on behalf of the owners which will eventually have to be paid by the owners.  So how does Marriott get paid?  Does it come out of reserve funds already paid by owners (and earmarked for other things,) or are reserves increased in the coming years to cover the legal fees, or is there a chance of another Special Assessment?  I realize Marriott will be compensated, but I don't know from where or how.


----------



## Dave M

For the most part my answer is not specific to Marriott or AOC....

The reserves are set aside for replacement of fixed assets that wear out. Thus, unusual legal costs are generally part of the operating expenses, which could result in an operating deficit in the current year. To the extent such expenses result in higher expenses than anticipated, owners of a resort can expect higher maintenance fees or (in rare cases) a special assessment in a future year.

Marriott gets paid a fee for its services to the resort, based on the wording of the contract between Marriott and the HOA. Any fees incurred by the HOA to hire attorneys would be paid directly by the HOA. It's also typical for management contracts to have a reimbursement clause for extraordinary expenditures. Further, sometimes a BOD will authorize the management company to make extra reimbursable expenditures on behalf of the HOA. 

Bottom line? Contrary to what Mark posted earlier in this thread, the HOA and, thus, the owners would foot the bill for extraordinary expenses that either Marriott or the HOA incurs to fight a battle involving the HOA. On the other hand, $90,000 isn't a lot - per AOC owner. It's less than $15 per week of ownership.


----------



## SueDonJ

Thanks, Dave, that's exactly what I was asking.


----------



## timeos2

*It isn't going to get cheaper*



Dave M said:


> Bottom line? Contrary to what Mark posted earlier in this thread, the HOA and, thus, the owners would foot the bill for extraordinary expenses that either Marriott or the HOA incurs to fight a battle involving the HOA. On the other hand, $90,000 isn't a lot - per AOC owner. It's less than $15 per week of ownership.



Thats $15 not available for operations and that will be billed to the owners or cut from otehr budget items. Has anyone seen $15 of improvement thanks to that effort? And that was to date. It will only continue to go up - dramatically if it becomes a real battle - and it WILL be paid by the owners. 

In what turned out to be a small case at one of our resorts in 2001 a 90 day lawsuit cost the owners $230,000  - and we won!  Was it worth it? Yes. But it was to remove a management company not try to recover alleged past payments for problems with the resort. In fact part of the settlement was to  drop any claims like that as they would have been too costly to litigate. And we had them to make. Sometimes it's better to get the biggest thing and move on at the lowest cost.  

The owners can't even seem to get an answer as to what exactly is the issue in this case. I wouldn't want an open checkbook for an unknown battle if it were my resort. Take a look at Bluebeards Castle  multi-year fight to see how badly THAT can end if you want a bad example (the owners fought management for years and ended up with almost exactly what had been offered in settlement at the start but after a huge legal bill was added on).


----------



## Dean

Dave M said:


> For the most part my answer is not specific to Marriott or AOC....
> 
> The reserves are set aside for replacement of fixed assets that wear out. Thus, unusual legal costs are generally part of the operating expenses, which could result in an operating deficit in the current year. To the extent such expenses result in higher expenses than anticipated, owners of a resort can expect higher maintenance fees or (in rare cases) a special assessment in a future year.
> 
> Marriott gets paid a fee for its services to the resort, based on the wording of the contract between Marriott and the HOA. Any fees incurred by the HOA to hire attorneys would be paid directly by the HOA. It's also typical for management contracts to have a reimbursement clause for extraordinary expenditures. Further, sometimes a BOD will authorize the management company to make extra reimbursable expenditures on behalf of the HOA.
> 
> Bottom line? Contrary to what Mark posted earlier in this thread, the HOA and, thus, the owners would foot the bill for extraordinary expenses that either Marriott or the HOA incurs to fight a battle involving the HOA. On the other hand, $90,000 isn't a lot - per AOC owner. It's less than $15 per week of ownership.


Dave do you think this amount will be included in the base for calculating their management fee as well?  If so, that automatically kicks it up quite a bit.

I would guess the number will hit 7 figures before it's done.  One way or another the owners there are going to pay both the SA and the extra fees.


----------



## Dave M

I don't know, Dean. I have seen some of the older management contracts, as they used to be included in the CC&Rs given to new owners at some Marriotts. I don't know how the AOC management contract would apply in this situation and don't want to make a guess.


----------



## Dean

Dave M said:


> I don't know, Dean. I have seen some of the older management contracts, as they used to be included in the CC&Rs given to new owners at some Marriotts. I don't know how the AOC management contract would apply in this situation and don't want to make a guess.


Thanks.  The ones I've seen were a % based on budget $$$ thus I'd guess it likely would increase Marriott's take at some point either as the money is paid or more likely, as the dues are increased to refill the reserve fund.


----------



## ecwinch

Is this by-law amendment something that "concerned owners group" initiated or something that the AOC Board initiated?

The WorldMark Board was faced with similar ligation to release the members list  and submitted a similar amendment, but focused on the modifying the by-laws to require the use of a third-party mailing house in lieu of release of the member register. Similar in nature to what Florida law requires. It was positioned as a measure to protect the privacy of owners and passed with a 93% approval by the owners.


----------



## marksue

THe letter is not accurate regarding the status of the suit.  FIrst of all the courts did not rule in favor of the board.  What the courts ruled was that the case did not meet the requirements for fast tracking, but instead needed to go through the standard process.  The board owes a response to the court on the complaint some where towards the end of Dec.

I know this as I have met with the  Aruba attorney who is representing us while I was  aruba.  

This could have been avoided if the board agreed to send out a mailing on behalf of the concerned owners.  THis was proposed as part of a court request to come up with a compromise.  

This is another attempt by the board to scare owners.  They know perfectly well that the list doesnt have to be given to anyone requesting it. Same way they tried the first time to scare people saying hte list would be used by telemarketers.

Once again the board is not being truthful to the owners.


----------



## modoaruba

In keeping with the Thanksgiving spirit, I volunteer to have Marriott save my $15/week by not having to protect me from the evil concerned owner's group.
I can take care of myself.
Off to grandma's! Yum!


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> THe letter is not accurate regarding the status of the suit.  FIrst of all the courts did not rule in favor of the board.  What the courts ruled was that the case did not meet the requirements for fast tracking, but instead needed to go through the standard process.  The board owes a response to the court on the complaint some where towards the end of Dec.
> 
> I know this as I have met with the  Aruba attorney who is representing us while I was  aruba.
> 
> This could have been avoided if the board agreed to send out a mailing on behalf of the concerned owners.  THis was proposed as part of a court request to come up with a compromise.
> 
> This is another attempt by the board to scare owners. * They know perfectly well that the list doesnt have to be given to anyone requesting it*. Same way they tried the first time to scare people saying hte list would be used by telemarketers.
> 
> Once again the board is not being truthful to the owners.



Mark,

In terms of the request that a mailing be made on the behalf of concerned owners, did the concerned owners offer to pay for that mailing? Or is this is a service that you feel that the Board should make available to any group that wants to communicate with other owners?

And I do not understand the highlighted portion of your comment. If the board has the right to reject a request for the list as you seem to say, then why is their rejection of your request a problem?

That is the part that is missing from your logic. You are assuming that everyone who could gain access to the list will behave in the same fashion as the concerned owners group would. You also are seemingly ignoring that every owner has the right to protect their personal information. 

And if the mailing would contain the same inaccuracies as you have stated here, then I think the Board's position is reasonable. They have no obligation to disseminate biased and inaccurate information created by your group.

All of this ignores the issue that your actions are increasing the costs of operating the resort. Something that your group claims to want to protect Marriott from doing. 

This outcome was predicted in this thread a long time ago. I now see a couple of cabana's being built by that lawyer's pool now.


----------



## marksue

yes we did offer to pay the postage.

And regarding the list it can be limited to Ocean CLub owners not anyone requesting it.


----------



## ecwinch

Got it - when you say "anyone" you meant anyone in the world, not any member. That was not clear initially. Is the board saying that without this amendment, they could be compelled to provide the list to "anyone" that requests it?

And to be equitable the offer would need to cover more than postage - which in itself I would assume to be fairly expensive for postage from Aruba. It would have to cover the cost to label and process the mailing. I am sure you offered to cover those costs also. As I am sure you were going to allow the Board to approve the content of the mailing to ensure it related to the governance of the club and was accurate.

So, if they give you the list, and then lets assume that five more people request the list also. If subsequently it became known that the list had fallen into the hands of a MVCI reseller, what action could the board take then?


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> Got it - when you say "anyone" you meant anyone in the world, not any member. That was not clear initially. Is the board saying that without this amendment, they could be compelled to provide the list to "anyone" that requests it?
> 
> And to be equitable the offer would need to cover more than postage - which in itself I would assume to be fairly expensive for postage from Aruba. It would have to cover the cost to label and process the mailing. I am sure you offered to cover those costs also. As I am sure you were going to allow the Board to approve the content of the mailing to ensure it related to the governance of the club and was accurate.
> 
> So, if they give you the list, and then lets assume that five more people request the list also. If subsequently it became known that the list had fallen into the hands of a MVCI reseller, what action could the board take then?



To keep the record straight,I have been solicited by a reseller for a few years now.Obviously they did not get my contact info from the Group since it obviously had not existed then and does not have the contact info yet.
Where pray tell did that info come from?
The call aggrivated me so much that I had to hang up on the nice salesman.
Imagine that,I was forced to hang up.Ruined my evening.

As for the postage,is that really an issue?How about sending the notices from right here,the good ole USA. The cost of the postage and handling would be a far cry less than the $15/week Marriott spent to punish the owners in order to divert attention away from the issues raised by the Group and pin owner against owner.IMHO.

Hope all had a great Thanksgiving.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> To keep the record straight,I have been solicited by a reseller for a few years now.Obviously they did not get my contact info from the Group since it obviously had not existed then and does not have the contact info yet.
> Where pray tell did that info come from?
> The call aggrivated me so much that I had to hang up on the nice salesman.
> Imagine that,I was forced to hang up.Ruined my evening.
> 
> As for the postage,is that really an issue?How about sending the notices from right here,the good ole USA. The cost of the postage and handling would be a far cry less than the $15/week Marriott spent to punish the owners in order to divert attention away from the issues raised by the Group and pin owner against owner.IMHO.
> 
> Hope all had a great Thanksgiving.



Any number of sources:

Have you ever attended a timeshare sales presentation?
Have you ever contacted a reseller?
Is your timeshare  deed in Aruba public information?
Could it just have been a cold call?
Have you ever provided your personal information to any resort that you exchanged into?

While not likely - given the track record - is it possible that a former BoD member provided it to them? For I think that is AS likely as the inference that you are making.

In regards to the postage. I thought the resort was in Aruba. Should not the notice be mailed from the resort?


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> Any number of sources:
> 
> Have you ever attended a timeshare sales presentation?
> Have you ever contacted a reseller?
> Is your timeshare  deed in Aruba public information?
> Could it just have been a cold call?
> 
> While not likely - given the track record - is it possible that a former BoD member provided it to them? So I think that is AS likely as the inference that you are making.
> 
> In regards to the postage. I thought the resort was in Aruba. Should not the notice be mailed from the resort?



Since we can never prove where contact info came from let's not speculate.

Regarding postage,my bill for the resort is sent by MVCI mailed from Florida not Aruba as is most, if not all, the mailings come from.
Since most owners are US citizens,it makes more sense to mail from here.


----------



## Dave M

_*Again, in my role as moderator....*_

Although it's occasionally helpful to find out specifics, badgering others needlessly on picky points is as much a violation of the BBS "Be Courteous" rules as are the other actions I referred to in my previous warning.

Because of the contentious but useful nature of this thread, I am choosing to put a tight rein on posts rather than close it. Those who choose to be discourteous can expect a suspension from posting without further warning.

Dave M
BBS Moderator


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Since we can never prove where contact info came from let's not speculate.
> 
> Regarding postage,my bill for the resort is sent by MVCI mailed from Florida not Aruba as is most, if not all, the mailings come from.
> Since most owners are US citizens,it makes more sense to mail from here.



Modoaruba,

I guess it would be depend on what was proposed to the AOC Board as a compromise and what their response was. Mark only mentioned that a compromise has been offered. We do not have enough information to know if the compromise was reasonable. Which is inherently a subjective decision. 

Thanks


----------



## vacationmama

I will resent paying for the $90,000 and the subsequent costs of anyone suing the resort. I feel it is a right not to have my personal information deseminated so I can be asked to join in a lawsuit that is bound to ruin the value of this resort and raise the costs everyone here has already been screaming about. But that is just one voice among "88 percent".


----------



## modoaruba

vacationmama said:


> I will resent paying for the $90,000 and the subsequent costs of anyone suing the resort. I feel it is a right not to have my personal information deseminated so I can be asked to join in a lawsuit that is bound to ruin the value of this resort and raise the costs everyone here has already been screaming about. But that is just one voice among "88 percent".



Talking to owners on the beach,everyone is concerned about our MFs and special assessments.They already know that the rentability and SALEABILITY is damaged due to the high MFs 
.Your concern that the value will be ruined has already been done.
When a perspective buyer is savy enough to ask about the MFs,they run away.You can see for yourself that many of the rentals listed on various websites are below our fees.
Most owners I speak to have had no clue as to what is going on until MVCI sent them the letter to vote about the disclosure which obviously came with a veiled threat.
I was always under the belief that a company like Marriott has lawyers on retainer which would mean that there was no cost to them to put up a roadblock.
Anybody know if that's true?


----------



## SueDonJ

I'm sure Marriott/MVCI employ lawyers in staff positions for the research related to local, state, federal and international regulations involved with their hotel/timeshare development and management.  And of course, there are lawyers who hold senior management positions to protect the stockholders.  Those salaries are probably absorbed independent of any specific resorts.  (Although it's possible that the staff work hours could be "billed" to specific resorts, if the accounting is set up with each resort as a "client.")

But in addition, there are probably as-needed contractual arrangements between Marriott/MVCI and lawyers who specialize in any number of fields, and those legal fees would probably be charged to the specific resort for which their services are needed.  I would guess that one or more of those lawyers have been called upon throughout this MAOC situation for research as well as authority.  In particular, I'm thinking here of that hiring of a "professional parliamentarian" for the annual meeting.  The Sep09 FAQ at arubaoceanclub.com indicates that Marriott had received advance notice of questions that caused them to believe the meeting wouldn't be orderly without one.  The fees for that service most likely included the two-hour meeting as well as the research the parliamentarian and his/her staff would have done prior to it.

That's how I would expect it all to work, anyway, with respect to routine and extraordinary legal issues.  I don't think that every owner under the MVCI umbrella should be expected to absorb excess legal costs that are specific to certain resort(s).


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Talking to owners on the beach,everyone is concerned about our MFs and special assessments.They already know that the rentability and SALEABILITY is damaged due to the high MFs
> .Your concern that the value will be ruined has already been done.
> When a perspective buyer is savy enough to ask about the MFs,they run away.You can see for yourself that many of the rentals listed on various websites are below our fees.
> Most owners I speak to have had no clue as to what is going on until MVCI sent them the letter to vote about the disclosure which obviously came with a veiled threat.
> I was always under the belief that a company like Marriott has lawyers on retainer which would mean that there was no cost to them to put up a roadblock.
> Anybody know if that's true?



Marriott certainly has a legal department that can focus resources on protecting the privacy rights of the MVCI members. But I doubt that their legal dept has a member of the bar in Aruba, so they likely need local counsel - so there would likely be out of pocket costs also. I would also think that the AOC board would want separate counsel also.

For while the "privacy" issue is complicated, you need only look at the WorldMark case regarding their member register to see how this might play out. In that case, even though the court ruled to allow access to the register, individual members in California and in Florida sued the WorldMark Board to BLOCK release of the list. In Florida those owners won a permanent injunction blocking the release of the list. 

So even if the court battle in Aruba results in a court order to release of the list, that might not be the final chapter in this case.


----------



## timeos2

*Nothing is free*



modoaruba said:


> I was always under the belief that a company like Marriott has lawyers on retainer which would mean that there was no cost to them to put up a roadblock.
> Anybody know if that's true?



Having a lawyer or firm on retainer doesn't mean the work they do is without charge. It means they are preset to represent the employer without needing to set up a contract. And they will bill the agreed hourly rate plus fees based on the exact minutes (and they track EVERY minute) they use to handle the account/resort. That bill will then be sent for payment to the Association. If it's an Association issue they pay any bills it generates.


----------



## marksue

*Aoc Concerned Owners Alert*

AOC CONCERNED OWNERS ALERT

Dear Owner - After returning from my Thanksgiving Holiday and receiving 100's of emails from Owners about the Aruba Ocean Clubs Board most recent letter calling for a special meeting to amend the By-Laws I must alert you to the following:  

Do not be fooled by this scare tactic from the Board and MVCI/Marriott.   The original request I made on behalf of the concerned Owners group was to be able to contact all AOC owners and share information about our concerns and the condition of our Building.  The Board and MVCI/Marriott refused.   

Why is the Board/MVCI/Marriott afraid of what we want to share with all Owners? 
Why have they refused to answer our owner questions? 

The announcement that they have spent over $90,000 of Owner funds is a outrage and every Owner should demand the removal of any Board member voting for this expenditure.   As for the proxy requested amendment DRAFTED by the Board - do not be mislead - the threat that your information will be made public can only happen if the Board gives it out for that purpose.  As an owner at Marriott's Grand Chateau in Las Vegas, I purposed to the AOC Board an amendment taken from the Grand Chateau's By Laws which as you can see noted below gives you protection.  I also understand that other MVCI resorts have owner information available to owners. 

The statement from the Board that they won in court in another attempt to mislead you.  When the Board refused to share our information with all Owners we sought a summary judgement from an Aruba judge.  After the Board/MVCI/Marriott again refused to share our information with all the Owners the judge decided not to rule on the matter and requested that it be filed with the full court which we have done.    All we have requested of the Board/MVCI/Marriott was to provide our information to all Owners. With the advice and counsel of Marriott's MVCI division the Board has continued to mislead Owners about the facts. 

Not one cent should have been spent since we have made it very clear that the only purpose for seeking the information is to contact all Owners regarding serious issues pertaining to the AOC.  It will not be used by "telemarketers" or the "public" as suggested by the Board/MVCI/Marriott. 

As owners get informed, our numbers continue to grown in support of the concerned owners.  Once we have the ability to contact all Owners, I am confident that action will be taken to replace Board members who continue wasting Owner funds.  Do you really want a MVCI/Marriott controlled Board to continue making decisions affecting you and your finances ?     

Something is very wrong with this picture!   I am making one more effort directly to Mr. Marriott and President Sorenson asking for Marriott International to investigate the actions of the MVCI division.  

Please return your proxy and vote yes, Let them know that you are willing to have your contact information provided to other Owners for legitimate purposes and not for commercial use.   

I am trying to arrange my schedule to be in attendance at the January special meeting,-but to be safe - Jay Ritterskamp, a concerned owner will definitely be at the meeting and is willing to represent you.  You can assign Jay as your proxy.  

You should also let the Board/MVCI/Marriott knows what you feel about their wasting Owner funds.  

If you have any questions, please call me or email me at c20854@aol.com.  

Sign up on *www.aocconcernedowners.com* for the latest information. 

Regards, Allan 

Allan S. Cohen, past AOC President


*By -Law from Marriott's new resort Grand Chateau in Las Vegas:  

"9.1  Membership Roster:  The membership roster, including mailing address and telephone numbers, books of accounts, the Association financial statement, the budget, the study of reserves and approved minutes of meetings of the Association, of the Board and of committees of the Board and all other records of the Project maintained by the Association, shall be available for inspection and copying by any Owner or their duly appointed representative at any reasonable time for a purpose reasonably related to their interest as an Owner, at the Office where the records are maintained.  Upon receipt of an authenticated written request from an Owner along with the fee prescribed by the Board to defray the costs of reproduction, the Manager or other custodian of records of the Association shall prepare and transmit to the Owner a copy of any and all records requested. 

9.2  Inspection: The Association may, as a condition to permitting an Owner to inspect the membership roster or to its furnishing information therefrom, require that the Owner agrees in writing not to use, or allow the use, of information from the membership roster for commercial or other purposes not reasonably related to the regular business of the Association and the Owner's interest in the Association.  Such written agreement shall be as determined by the Board, but may require the Owner to disclose his or her purpose for obtaining the roster, and may impose severe fines and penalties for any Owner's misuse or misapplication of the register for commercial use.  The Owner's inspection privileges do not apply to the personnel records of the employees of the Association and the records of the Association relating to another Owner."  

*Regards, Allan


----------



## Dave M

I agree with Allan that owners should not be fooled. However, my reasons are different from his.

Although owners should certainly make a careful decision before responding to the request from Marriott, they should also be aware that Allan's statements are biased and, in some cases misleading, as has been previously outlined in detail in this thread. Allan has an "agenda", just as the BOD does.

I don't care which way you vote, but if you are an owner, be sure to vote!


----------



## lovearuba

Dave M said:


> I agree with Allan that owners should not be fooled. However, my reasons are different from his.
> 
> Although owners should certainly make a careful decision before responding to the request from Marriott, they should also be aware that Allan's statements are biased and, in some cases misleading, as has been previously outlined in detail in this thread. Allan has an "agenda", just as the BOD does.
> 
> I don't care which way you vote, but if you are an owner, be sure to vote!


 
I think its interesteing that you would comment about Allan being bias without also stating that Marriott's letter is misleading. I guess I expected more fairness from a moderator.


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> The announcement that they have spent over $90,000 of Owner funds is a outrage and every Owner should demand the removal of any Board member voting for this expenditure.


Given that they are in a position of defending a legal action, I don't see they have any choice other than to give in to any demands.  I  wouldn't have any way to verify the numbers but the cost seems reasonable because any hours spent even by the in house legal department will be charged hours in all likelihood in addition to the costs for an Aruban attorney or group of.  From what I've heard of Aruban Law and what I saw with the La Cabana issue, the amendment proposed would not be legal in Aruba.


----------



## lovearuba

Dean said:


> Given that they are in a position of defending a legal action, I don't see they have any choice other than to give in to any demands. I wouldn't have any way to verify the numbers but the cost seems reasonable because any hours spent even by the in house legal department will be charged hours in all likelihood in addition to the costs for an Aruban attorney or group of. From what I've heard of Aruban Law and what I saw with the La Cabana issue, the amendment proposed would not be legal in Aruba.


 
Dean, briefly what happened with LaCabana?  If you have time you can send me a pm if you dont want to take this thread off topic.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> I think its interesteing that you would comment about Allan being bias without also stating that Marriott's letter is misleading. I guess I expected more fairness from a moderator.



How can anyone (Dave included) who hasn't seen the letter from Marriott be expected to say that it is misleading?  That's what I would think is unfair, for people to make or be asked to make a judgment about a letter that they haven't read.


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> (Allan Cohen wrote) ... Do you really want a MVCI/Marriott controlled Board to continue making decisions affecting you and your finances ? ...



Are there any MVCI resorts which do not have at least one Marriott seat on the Board of Directors?  For those Boards that do have Marriott seat(s), are there any provisions (other than an ownership vote for specific items) whereby the other seated members can be forced to vote against the Marriott seat(s)?


----------



## cruisin

The Grand chateau bylaws seem very reasonable and a good model to shoot for, good luck.


----------



## ecwinch

cruisin said:


> The Grand chateau bylaws seem very reasonable and a good model to shoot for, good luck.



The problem becomes that once more than one party has been given the list, your ability to pinpoint the source of a violation is significantly diminished. The argument can be made that it would be almost impossible to do so. It would require a board to:

1) Identify with legal certainty that the list is being used for a purpose not authorized

2) Initiate legal proceedings against the violator

3) A favorable outcome of those proceedings, securing a judgement against the party. 

4) Collecting that judgement

Consider those actions in a situation where someone obtains the list and then sells it to a timeshare reseller or mailing list provider. In which the violation may be one or two parties removed from party that is actually making use of the list (i.e. I sell the list to ABC Mailing House, who in turns provides it to Timeshare Scammers, Inc.).

While the amendment may seem reasonable on the surface. Once a breach has occurred, a financial judgement may not be sufficient to address the harm caused. The adage "you cannot un-ring a bell" comes to mind.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> I think its interesteing that you would comment about Allan being bias without also stating that Marriott's letter is misleading. I guess I expected more fairness from a moderator.



He is only stating the obvious.

I also think that by doing so, he only preempted numerous other posts of a similar nature which could have only increased the tension of this thread.

Additionally, as Sue notes, Dave could only have commented about MVCI's letter if he had actually seen it. Also since Allan has already commented in great detail on their letter, I do not see what would be the point of doing so.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> Dean, briefly what happened with LaCabana?  If you have time you can send me a pm if you dont want to take this thread off topic.


I'll try not to get too off topic but give a brief synopsis of what I recall though I'm sure there are others who know far more than I.  La Cabana was developed by a prominent developer, one with a lot of pull.  Then they developed a second resort across the street.  Over the years there were some issues and a few special assessments including items listed for the SA the second time that were listed round one.  There came to be a similar group to what we're seeing here and they asked for the membership list and were given it though as it turns out, they should not have been.  It was reported being against Aruban Law to do so though I can't say anything more than that.  Apparently the BOD and management asked for the list back and there was some back and forth.  I don't believe the list was ever given back but some concessions and promises were made as to how it would be used.  Since the developer and hand picked management company has been kicked out and the resorts are now totally separate.  You should have seen the upset people who realized that the 2 resorts were technically separate but they had bought looking at them as one and assuming legally that was the case.  There was quite a back and forth for those that owned one and wanted to use amenities at the other and for those that owned both that were now separate systems.  

Ultimately the members paid quite a price and lost quite a bit of money due to legal maneuverings and broken promises including many in writing.  My guess, and it's simply a guess based on various pieces of info, is that the set of issues cost the members at La Cabana BRC somewhere in the $2-3 Million range.  That includes some apparent embezzlement, mismanagement, unpaid rent from the developer, legal issues and back taxes that should have either not been due or paid by other parties.  

Over a 10 year period the Maint fees doubled with 3 SA totally about $1500 per studio and 1 BR and double that for a 2 BR lockoff.  When I converted my fixed weeks to bluegreen points my maint fees were 2/3 of what they fixed week fees would have been.  Fortunately I managed to miss all of the SA by sheer luck as I bought and sold units over the years.  Here's some info from a message I wrote in 2005 to someone asking about problems there.  



> Evaporated or non existent reserves leading to what amounted to an ongoing special assessment in terms of a major fee increase that was hinted to be rolled back in the future, but was not. The fee increase was to cover things that should have been in the budget all along.
> 
> There was the suggestion of possible pocketed money around the same time by some that left.
> 
> There was another special assessment to cover, in part, the things the fee increase was supposed to cover.
> 
> The casino fiasco could be several pages unto itself. But it suffices to say that it has been a nightmare with many to blame.
> 
> We've seen the BOD approach BG with the idea of taking over management only to see a lawsuit by the management company to block that attempt.
> 
> The Board is charging the management company for the Casino Rental and are being sued to stop that if I recall correctly.
> 
> We've seen an attempt to change accounting firms only to see a lawsuit by the management company over that.
> 
> The government went back on their agreement and charged taxes they shouldn't which should have been paid by the developer but wasn't.


----------



## cruisin

Deja vu? Hope this doesn't happen to the owners in this case.


----------



## ecwinch

cruisin said:


> Deja vu? Hope this doesn't happen to the owners in this case.



A sentiment I think most of us non-owners share.


----------



## lovearuba

*sad*



Dean said:


> I'll try not to get too off topic but give a brief synopsis of what I recall though I'm sure there are others who know far more than I. La Cabana was developed by a prominent developer, one with a lot of pull. Then they developed a second resort across the street. Over the years there were some issues and a few special assessments including items listed for the SA the second time that were listed round one. There came to be a similar group to what we're seeing here and they asked for the membership list and were given it though as it turns out, they should not have been. It was reported being against Aruban Law to do so though I can't say anything more than that. Apparently the BOD and management asked for the list back and there was some back and forth. I don't believe the list was ever given back but some concessions and promises were made as to how it would be used. Since the developer and hand picked management company has been kicked out and the resorts are now totally separate. You should have seen the upset people who realized that the 2 resorts were technically separate but they had bought looking at them as one and assuming legally that was the case. There was quite a back and forth for those that owned one and wanted to use amenities at the other and for those that owned both that were now separate systems.
> 
> Ultimately the members paid quite a price and lost quite a bit of money due to legal maneuverings and broken promises including many in writing. My guess, and it's simply a guess based on various pieces of info, is that the set of issues cost the members at La Cabana BRC somewhere in the $2-3 Million range. That includes some apparent embezzlement, mismanagement, unpaid rent from the developer, legal issues and back taxes that should have either not been due or paid by other parties.
> 
> Over a 10 year period the Maint fees doubled with 3 SA totally about $1500 per studio and 1 BR and double that for a 2 BR lockoff. When I converted my fixed weeks to bluegreen points my maint fees were 2/3 of what they fixed week fees would have been. Fortunately I managed to miss all of the SA by sheer luck as I bought and sold units over the years. Here's some info from a message I wrote in 2005 to someone asking about problems there.


 

That truly is sad, makes you wonder if anyone is honest these days.  I have stayed at LaCabana many years ago but bought Marriott because I liked the brand name.  I hope things are better for the LaCabana owners but rentals are really cheap so I imagine their timeshares are not worth keeping, similar to the my situation with Aruba.  Its much cheaper to rent than to pay for the maintenance fees. That's the bottom line and I see no silver lining in getting the fees back to reasonable levels.  Thanks for the update.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> That truly is sad, makes you wonder if anyone is honest these days.  I have stayed at LaCabana many years ago but bought Marriott because I liked the brand name.  I hope things are better for the LaCabana owners but rentals are really cheap so I imagine their timeshares are not worth keeping, similar to the my situation with Aruba.  Its much cheaper to rent than to pay for the maintenance fees. That's the bottom line and I see no silver lining in getting the fees back to reasonable levels.  Thanks for the update.


Again, just my thoughts and I'm sure there are those with far better specific info than I.  I can tell you the units I bought were cheap to very cheap but I made a few dollars on the ones I sold and converted the last ones I owned to BG for a whale of a deal.  While LCB is nice enough it is not on par with Marriott even after the upgrades are complete.


----------



## marksue

*Marriott gives out email address of AOC owners*

Marriott has jsut given out the email adress of AOC owners to the Desert SPring resort.  FOr a company that is fighting AOC owners to not release our email or mailing address, why did they provide our email to DS.  Once again Marriott is operating with 2 sets of rules.  One for them, allowing them to do what they want by giving out our email address to non relevant resorts and then prevent owners from sharing information regarding thier resort with other owners by hiding the contact info.

Way to go Marriott.  Good way to build trust.


----------



## lovearuba

*lawyers fees*

Do you think Desert Springs had to get a lawyer to request the addresses?  Why wouldnt the Ocean Club put some controls around who they release private member information to. They seem to use this as their rationale for not releasing data to an owner who wants to communicate with other owners.  This shows the incompetency of the folks that manage these owner lists.    :ignore:


----------



## Kelly&Sean

That email came from Marriott Owner Services.  Obviously, the person at Marriott that sends those emails picked the wrong group to send it to.  I do not see how any of my personal information was released to anyone in this case.  Marriott already has my email, the owners of the other Marriott Timershare did not send this email so how would they have gotten our information?  Personally, I think that it was a honest mistake and no one was hurt by it.


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> Marriott has jsut given out the email adress of AOC owners to the Desert SPring resort.  FOr a company that is fighting AOC owners to not release our email or mailing address, why did they provide our email to DS.  Once again Marriott is operating with 2 sets of rules.  One for them, allowing them to do what they want by giving out our email address to non relevant resorts and then prevent owners from sharing information regarding thier resort with other owners by hiding the contact info.
> 
> Way to go Marriott.  Good way to build trust.


I'm not sure about the specifics but sharing information within a company is totally different than being discussed in this thread and in most cases would be reasonable.  It is certainly not an endorsement for the appropriateness of releasing to a group of owners.


----------



## lovearuba

Dean said:


> I'm not sure about the specifics but sharing information within a company is totally different than being discussed in this thread and in most cases would be reasonable. It is certainly not an endorsement for the appropriateness of releasing to a group of owners.


 
But releasing them to other timeshares for an unrelated reason does not make sense, it was obviously an error


----------



## Zac495

Hi All,
It's been awhile since I chimed in - long ago sold my Aruba property - but still thinking of all of you.


----------



## lovearuba

*nice to hear from you Ellen*

Hope you are still enjoying your vacations.  Are you going back to Aruba in 2010.  I plan to be there in the summer.


----------



## luvmypt

Owning two weeks at MOA we always get two emails from Marriott Owner Services regarding our resort but yesterday I was surprised in getting two emails from them for Desert Springs Villas II.


----------



## irish

i got it too.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> But releasing them to other timeshares for an unrelated reason does not make sense, it was obviously an error


Within Marriott I'd call it all one.  I'd be a lumper rather than a splitter when it came to this issue within Marriott in general and especially within MVCI.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> Marriott has jsut given out the email adress of AOC owners to the Desert SPring resort.





lovearuba said:


> But releasing them to other timeshares for an unrelated reason does not make sense, it was obviously an error



Ignoring that no release of information was involved, and that Marriott Owner Services is not the Desert Spring Resort.


----------



## SueDonJ

From the little bit of info given here it sounds like MVCI Owner Services either sent MAOC owners an email notification intended for DSV owners, or sent MAOC owners a solicitation for the DSV resort.  Neither of those would appear to be illegal - the first is simply an honest mistake (maybe the resort key-code was entered incorrectly by the MVCI employee?) that doesn't entail a release of your contact information to any third party; and the second appears to be allowable by the MVCI internet privacy rules (found on my-vacationclub.com) if you haven't notified them in writing that you don't want to receive solicitations.

Of course maybe what you MAOC owners were sent is something completely different.  (Like I said, it's difficult to tell by the limited info here.)  If that's the case, have any of you owners who received this notice incorrectly looked at the rules to determine if MVCI has acted illegally here?


----------



## modoaruba

Now you see,no harm done.
We got an email and the only inconvenience was to open and read.
So if the owners group sent emails regarding the concerns of fellow owners,
the only inconvenience is open and read.No harm done.
All it is is owners trying to communicate with their peers as to concerns that came up.No different than going to the AOC and talking to whomever in person, except by email they can tell everyone.Then it's up to the owners to decide wether something should be done or not.And that is that.The end.

Just came back from 2 weeks at the AOC.The people we spoke with brought up the issues themselves.Owners are angry and Marriott's response is making them even more so.
The Goliath tactic by MVCI and their latest tactical letter about the vote is infuriating lots of owners.They know if a majority of owners get wind of the concerns there will be trouble.

I still have a hard time comprehending the negativity surrounding  the concerns of reaching all of the owners.


----------



## ecwinch

The one element I find missing from your analysis and that is the issue of precedent. If the AOC BoD allowed e-mails to be forwarded to owners from other owners, I doubt that the use of that procedure would be limited to just one or two e-mails.

For if the AOC granted e-mail access to your group, then it would be discriminatory to deny the next the request

And has been demonstrated here, it is likely that some parties would aggressively assert that right and owners could easily find their in-box filled with daily communications from this owner or that owner on some issue that the author feels is imperative.

In particularly given the biased nature of the reports that are made here (this issue being one of them - initially reported that owner information was being given away), I find it highly likely that owners would receive multiple e-mails on a regular basis.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> Now you see,no harm done.
> We got an email and the only inconvenience was to open and read.
> So if the owners group sent emails regarding the concerns of fellow owners,
> the only inconvenience is open and read.No harm done.
> All it is is owners trying to communicate with their peers as to concerns that came up.No different than going to the AOC and talking to whomever in person, except by email they can tell everyone.Then it's up to the owners to decide wether something should be done or not.And that is that.The end. ...
> 
> I still have a hard time comprehending the negativity surrounding  the concerns of reaching all of the owners.



I think what you're having trouble comprehending is that there are legal stipulations which dictate who/what has access to the owners' contact information as well as for what purpose(s) that information can be utilized.  If yesterday's (mistake? solicitation?) email violated any of those stipulations, you MAOC owners have just cause to challenge MVCI Owner Services over their actions.  By the same token, Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD has just cause to challenge any request for owners' contact information, if releasing it will be in violation of any contract terms or privacy laws.

You've said so often that you believe this is all "nitpicking" and that Marriott appears willing to do any little thing that will put up a roadblock to this group's efforts.  I don't comprehend that.  Contract terms and laws are absolutes, either they are legally binding or they are not.  There isn't a middle ground or any certain situation(s) for which they can be unilaterally bypassed by any entity.  You (owners, MVCI, etc.) are ALL bound by the contract terms and existing laws.  What boggles my mind is that you would be okay with Marriott et al circumventing those things in order to appease only the interests of this minority ownership group.  If they did so and it was accepted, that would set a precedent for Marriott to do so again in the future for reasons which may harm you rather than help you. 

An honest question, here, Modo.  What would be your reaction if Marriott et all DID violate contract terms or laws in order to appease any other group which did NOT have your ownership interests, or completely went against your ownership interests?


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> ... Just came back from 2 weeks at the AOC.The people we spoke with brought up the issues themselves.Owners are angry and Marriott's response is making them even more so.
> The Goliath tactic by MVCI and their latest tactical letter about the vote is infuriating lots of owners.They know if a majority of owners get wind of the concerns there will be trouble. ...



I don't blame people for being angry and upset.  From the very beginning of this thread the one thing that all of us have agreed upon is that the financial situation at your resort and the increased fees/special assessment bills for this year and last are costing owners much more than they'd been led to expect.

I haven't seen the recent letter from Marriott to MAOC owners but I can speculate based on different owners' responses in this thread that the legal fees alluded to in that letter are one cause of further anger, and that the blame for those fees is being placed by some owners on Marriott et al and by some other owners on this "concerned owners group."

With the many communications that have been issued by Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD throughout this year-long plus situation, do you honestly believe that there are still owners out there who are completely in the dark about "the concerns?"  I'm assuming here that by "concerns" you're referring to the biased allegations made by Allan Cohen and Marksue surrounding the building itself as well as the BOD's history.  Isn't it possible that at least some owners have researched those things on the internet, as you have, and have relied upon the unbiased information they collected to reach their own conclusions that the efforts of the "concerned owners group" are not efforts they wish to join?  It seems a little disingenuous to continue to insinuate that all of those owners not in agreement with you are simply ignorant.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> I don't blame people for being angry and upset.  From the very beginning of this thread the one thing that all of us have agreed upon is that the financial situation at your resort and the increased fees/special assessment bills for this year and last are costing owners much more than they'd been led to expect.
> 
> I haven't seen the recent letter from Marriott to MAOC owners but I can speculate based on different owners' responses in this thread that the legal fees alluded to in that letter are one cause of further anger, and that the blame for those fees is being placed by some owners on Marriott et al and by some other owners on this "concerned owners group."
> 
> With the many communications that have been issued by Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD throughout this year-long plus situation, do you honestly believe that there are still owners out there who are completely in the dark about "the concerns?"  I'm assuming here that by "concerns" you're referring to the biased allegations made by Allan Cohen and Marksue surrounding the building itself as well as the BOD's history.  Isn't it possible that at least some owners have researched those things on the internet, as you have, and have relied upon the unbiased information they collected to reach their own conclusions that the efforts of the "concerned owners group" are not efforts they wish to join?  It seems a little disingenuous to continue to insinuate that all of those owners not in agreement with you are simply ignorant.


 
First of all when you say biased allegations I don't believe that is so.
The allegations have quite a bit of factual back up IMO.
On the history of Aruba web site they discuss the rusty shell abandoned by the original hotel developer.They tell about wanting to blow it up until Marriott took over.
Allan Cohen was always open with the owners and very straight.Obviously got him in trouble.But he has the inside info as to what to look out for for the owner's concern.Whistle blowers have many enemies.But at least listen and one might learn something.Does not mean you have to agree.Just listen.
Every one is entitled to their own opinion which means that they can join or not.I still believe that a vast number of owners have no clue as to what is going on and have become confused due to the letter from MVCI.
I believe that if an owner lets say has 1 week,they might care about the fees but are not likely to proceed any further than paying it.
It's like anything else in the world,people are usually complacent.

Assuming that the emails do not get to the owners from the concerned group;
There are enough of them out there to spread the info directly to other owners when they are physically at the AOC.It just takes longer.
When I was there,there was an owner giving out info about the group.
There was info placed in the elevators for owners to see.Which conveniently dissappeared.
The momentum is growing to get the word out.What one does with it is a different story.

As far as the legal fees go.What a farce.The BOD should have never allowed it.It was a deliberate punishment placed upon owners saying that if they support the group,not only will the fees remain high,but will continue to climb.
Webster's defines this as extortion.IMHO.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> First of all when you say biased allegations I don't believe that is so.
> The allegations have quite a bit of factual back up IMO.
> On the history of Aruba web site they discuss the rusty shell abandoned by the original hotel developer.They tell about wanting to blow it up until Marriott took over.



As was discussed in this thread, rust itself is not an indicator of faulty structure.  If your group has concrete evidence of a faulty structure that goes beyond a simple, "we saw rust" defense, that evidence should have been produced long before this situation deteriorated to the point where it is now.

And naturally, Aruban authorities don't want any vacant properties littering their landscape because tourism is the number-one industry.  Implosions have been done on many abandoned buildings simply to remove the blight on the landscape.  Probably the shell would have been demolished if Marriott hadn't taken over the project, but that's not admissible evidence that the structure was faulty.



modoaruba said:


> Allan Cohen was always open with the owners and very straight.Obviously got him in trouble.But he has the inside info as to what to look out for for the owner's concern.Whistle blowers have many enemies.But at least listen and one might learn something.Does not mean you have to agree.Just listen.
> Every one is entitled to their own opinion which means that they can join or not.



From what I've seen here from Allan, I don't believe that he is unbiased or above-board in his efforts.  And I've said many times that I don't believe his former status as a member of the MAOC BOD granted him any rights to divulge any "inside info" that he learned as a member.  In fact I think he's acting exactly as I wouldn't want my BOD members to act, circumventing the bylaws of the resort.  Admittedly, though, those are my opinions.  It just wouldn't surprise me if others, including MAOC owners, might share my opinions based on what we've learned in this thread.



modoaruba said:


> I still believe that a vast number of owners have no clue as to what is going on and have become confused due to the letter from MVCI.
> I believe that if an owner lets say has 1 week,they might care about the fees but are not likely to proceed any further than paying it.
> It's like anything else in the world,people are usually complacent.



I haven't seen the letter.  But I do have a general understanding of how Marriott acts as a developer and manager of MVCI properties, and I know that a lot of what I've seen from the "concerned owners group" in this thread has left me more confused than anything issued by Marriott et al.  So it appears that the confusion or complacency that you're seeing may actually be confusion or disagreement with this group's efforts.



modoaruba said:


> Assuming that the emails do not get to the owners from the concerned group;
> There are enough of them out there to spread the info directly to other owners when they are physically at the AOC.It just takes longer.
> When I was there,there was an owner giving out info about the group.
> There was info placed in the elevators for owners to see.Which conveniently dissappeared.
> The momentum is growing to get the word out.What one does with it is a different story.



No problem here.  I'm not in favor of censorship, Modo, I just want all the laws and contract terms to be upheld.  If your group can figure out how to get the word out correctly, all the more power to them.



modoaruba said:


> As far as the legal fees go.What a farce.The BOD should have never allowed it.It was a deliberate punishment placed upon owners saying that if they support the group,not only will the fees remain high,but will continue to climb.
> Webster's defines this as extortion.IMHO.



As Dean said so clearly here, the BOD has no choice but to defend (itself and Marriott as the resort's management company) against the legal challenge(s) it faces from the "concerned owners group."  No choice.  Any BOD member who would vote against a legal defense in the face of a legal challenge has no business being on the BOD.


----------



## modoaruba

So,I see it as black and you see it as white or vise versa.
Time will tell.
We just keep discussing the same issues effortlessly.
So,until the next bit of NEW news,have a great holiday.


----------



## marksue

*More money for owners to pay*

In the October FAQ's sent out by the board we were told that the Facade needed maintenance.  We were told we the owners have 600k for this effort and Marriott was paying 1 million.  

We are now being told that the work will cost 2.5 million and the owners have to pay 1 million.  Does this mean we will have another assesment.  Owners questions in regard to this issue have gone unanswered.  If Marriott is putting in 1.5m to this effort you have to question how bad conditions were and continue to be with this building.  Why has the board still refused to release the full mold report and full engineering report.  

 In this work is the the replacing of window frames. We just went through a replacement of all windows, why were they not replaced when the windows were replaced.



Question: What is the status of the planned façade maintenance project at the resort?
Answer: MVCI recently funded efforts to develop a project scope, obtain preliminary bids from six contractors,
and prepare a presentation of various options for the Board to review and consider. Subsequently, the Board
reviewed a list of regular maintenance items as well as a list of additional items which, if completed in the short
term, may allow the Association to realize cost savings or other advantages. While the Board completed its review, MVCI continued to work with the most competitive contractors to focus the scope of their work and
obtain the most favorable pricing possible based on the Board's direction. The Association has nearly $600,000 in reserve funding approved for this project. In addition to the façade maintenance, which will be funded by the
Association, MVCI will voluntarily make a one-time contribution of approximately $1M to fund optional façade improvements that were recommended by a certified architect based on the specific impact of the Aruban climate on the building during the last 10 years.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> So,I see it as black and you see it as white or vise versa.
> Time will tell.
> We just keep discussing the same issues effortlessly.
> So,until the next bit of NEW news,have a great holiday.



Thanks, Modo, and happy holidays to you and yours too.

Until the NEW news, though, I directed this question to you and would like an answer to this question from anyone who wants to answer it.  MAOC owner or not, "concerned owners group" supporter or not, it doesn't matter.



> What would be your reaction if Marriott et all DID violate contract terms or laws in order to appease any other group which did NOT have your ownership interests, or completely went against your ownership interests?


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Thanks, Modo, and happy holidays to you and yours too.
> 
> Until the NEW news, though, I directed this question to you and would like an answer to this question from anyone who wants to answer it.  MAOC owner or not, "concerned owners group" supporter or not, it doesn't matter.



If you want to know the answer, I always say follow the money.
Who is benefiting financially from it and who is paying.
There lies your answer.
In this instance,the owners group is not seeking a profit.So be it.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> In the October FAQ's sent out by the board we were told that the Facade needed maintenance.  We were told we the owners have 600k for this effort and Marriott was paying 1 million.
> 
> We are now being told that the work will cost 2.5 million and the owners have to pay 1 million.  Does this mean we will have another assesment.  Owners questions in regard to this issue have gone unanswered.  If Marriott is putting in 1.5m to this effort you have to question how bad conditions were and continue to be with this building.  Why has the board still refused to release the full mold report and full engineering report.
> 
> In this work is the the replacing of window frames. We just went through a replacement of all windows, why were they not replaced when the windows were replaced.
> 
> 
> 
> Question: What is the status of the planned façade maintenance project at the resort?
> Answer: MVCI recently funded efforts to develop a project scope, obtain preliminary bids from six contractors,
> and prepare a presentation of various options for the Board to review and consider. Subsequently, the Board
> reviewed a list of regular maintenance items as well as a list of additional items which, if completed in the short
> term, may allow the Association to realize cost savings or other advantages. While the Board completed its review, MVCI continued to work with the most competitive contractors to focus the scope of their work and
> obtain the most favorable pricing possible based on the Board's direction. The Association has nearly $600,000 in reserve funding approved for this project. In addition to the façade maintenance, which will be funded by the
> Association, MVCI will voluntarily make a one-time contribution of approximately $1M to fund optional façade improvements that were recommended by a certified architect based on the specific impact of the Aruban climate on the building during the last 10 years.



Mark,

Hindsight is always 20/20. Decisions have to be made based on the best information available at the time the decision needs to be made. Events beyond the control of the BoD can change the facts, but is not indicative of conspiracy, incompetence, or malfeasance as you infer. For a similar set of Monday Morning Quarterback reviews can be conducted on the decisions that Allan Cohen made when he was BoD President to reach a similar conclusion. 

And your reports have proven to be so extremely biased, that it is now difficult to separate fact from fiction. So I take your assertion that the BoD is ignoring questions from the owners to mean that they are only ignoring questions from your group, for the obvious reason that no answer will prove to be adequate. And doing so just provides more fodder for you to distort and recast in order to cast them in the worst possible light.

Thanks


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> If you want to know the answer, I always say follow the money.
> Who is benefiting financially from it and who is paying.
> There lies your answer.
> In this instance,the owners group is not seeking a profit.So be it.



Which certainly goes a long way toward explaining why a law firm in Aruba is mounting such a vigorous advocacy of this case on a contingency basis. So while the owners group is not seeking a profit, that certainly does not hold true for all the parties that are supporting the effort.

So I would only encourage you to apply that same test to those efforts.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Thanks, Modo, and happy holidays to you and yours too.
> 
> Until the NEW news, though, I directed this question to you and would like an answer to this question from anyone who wants to answer it.  MAOC owner or not, "concerned owners group" supporter or not, it doesn't matter.





ecwinch said:


> Which certainly goes a long way toward explaining why a law firm in Aruba is mounting such a vigorous advocacy of this case on a contingency basis. So while the owners group is not seeking a profit, that certainly does not hold true for all the parties that are supporting the effort.
> 
> So I would only encourage you to apply that same test to those efforts.



If I understand you correctly,who will profit with a financial gain from the group?The only positive financial gain would be,is if marriott contributed more, there will be less cost per owner equally.This is not a get rich quick scheme but a cost reduction cry to be equally shared by all.


----------



## timeos2

*Asking for too much may lead to paying far more. Take whats in hand and doesn't cost*



marksue said:


> In the October FAQ's sent out by the board we were told that the Facade needed maintenance.  We were told we the owners have 600k for this effort and Marriott was paying 1 million.
> 
> We are now being told that the work will cost 2.5 million and the owners have to pay 1 million.  Does this mean we will have another assesment.  Owners questions in regard to this issue have gone unanswered.  If Marriott is putting in 1.5m to this effort you have to question how bad conditions were and continue to be with this building.  Why has the board still refused to release the full mold report and full engineering report.
> 
> In this work is the the replacing of window frames. We just went through a replacement of all windows, why were they not replaced when the windows were replaced.
> 
> 
> 
> Question: What is the status of the planned façade maintenance project at the resort?
> Answer: MVCI recently funded efforts to develop a project scope, obtain preliminary bids from six contractors,
> and prepare a presentation of various options for the Board to review and consider. Subsequently, the Board
> reviewed a list of regular maintenance items as well as a list of additional items which, if completed in the short
> term, may allow the Association to realize cost savings or other advantages. While the Board completed its review, MVCI continued to work with the most competitive contractors to focus the scope of their work and
> obtain the most favorable pricing possible based on the Board's direction. The Association has nearly $600,000 in reserve funding approved for this project. In addition to the façade maintenance, which will be funded by the
> Association, MVCI will voluntarily make a one-time contribution of approximately $1M to fund optional façade improvements that were recommended by a certified architect based on the specific impact of the Aruban climate on the building during the last 10 years.



Projects such as this occur at every resort and aren't always within the originally estimated quote.  No surprise. Obviously the Association was aware as they budgeted reserves for it as they should. I would see it a s bonus that Marriott is offering to cover a big chunk - they do  not have to do that but apparently feel it is fair to.  No building lasts forever, no repair lasts forever, being exposed or not during construction may have potentially created an issue but if it did the Marriott offer would seem to leave the owners in a position that they would have been in anyway (or whats known as "made whole") as they will only be paying for what would have been considered normal aging/wear & tear rather than the full bill that could be including extras potentially caused by that early on exposure to the elements.  Of they pay to correct that part what they owe is covered. After that the normal work costs rightfully falls to owners as they would have faced it at this time no matter what in the normal upkeep of the resort building(s). 

They are getting 6 bids(!) That is far beyond what most would do and should help assure a good price and a good reputation for the contractor chosen. All in all a good job by the management in identifying the problem, getting real estimates and multiple bids, getting Marriott to cover a questionable part of a major repair and correctly setting up for the owners to pay the share they are responsible for.  

I assume you feel Marriott should, as has been stated in other cases, pay it all. That simply isn't going to happen as they don't own 100% of the resort. They have, it seems, been fair (in some cases it appears more than fair) in accepting a level of responsibility for some items that may have been improperly handled way back at original construction though payment of excessive repairs now required.  Asking to be covered 100% for all repairs isn't reasonable after all these years - Marriott asking owners to pick up the "regular" level of ongoing capital repairs and upgrades most certainly is. Getting more than that from Marriott becomes an undeserved enrichment that no court will back up.  There are costs to owning, maintaining and operating a timeshare resort. Having a brand name on your buildings means you must live up to those minimum standards and, as any name brand owner will tell you, after the first few years while the Developer subsidies dry up, the cost to have that name can be substantial if compared to resorts perhaps just as nice but not managed by a name brand group.  

Thinking your fees will be lowered is a pipe dream if you wish to stay under the Marriott branding umbrella.  Ask any of the many Marriott resorts where there weren't exposed shells during construction which way their fees have gone, if there are/have been/are planned special assessments and you'll quickly fond that except for the money Marriott is paying to cover those unusual issues (roof, rust) the story is basically the same for every resort.  You are getting special attention from Marriott as they apparently attempt to cover things that didn't work out well but you still owe for things that are going to occur as a natural, never ending process at every resort ever built. Kill that desire to "make things right" by demanding far more than you are entitled to and you may end up paying it all.  That will NOT be a savings.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> If I understand you correctly,who will profit with a financial gain from the group?The only positive financial gain would be,is if marriott contributed more, there will be less cost per owner equally.This is not a get rich quick scheme but a cost reduction cry to be equally shared by all.



Modo,

The law firm in Aruba will most likely profit regardless of the outcome. Unless you believe that their motivation in this issue is altruistic and they are working pro bono.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> If you want to know the answer, I always say follow the money.
> Who is benefiting financially from it and who is paying.
> There lies your answer.
> In this instance,the owners group is not seeking a profit.So be it.



I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand how what you've written here could in any way be an answer to the question I asked:


> What would be your reaction if Marriott et all DID violate contract terms or laws in order to appease any other group which did NOT have your ownership interests, or completely went against your ownership interests?


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> Now you see,no harm done.
> We got an email and the only inconvenience was to open and read.
> So if the owners group sent emails regarding the concerns of fellow owners,
> the only inconvenience is open and read.No harm done.
> All it is is owners trying to communicate with their peers as to concerns that came up.No different than going to the AOC and talking to whomever in person, except by email they can tell everyone.Then it's up to the owners to decide wether something should be done or not.And that is that.The end.
> 
> Just came back from 2 weeks at the AOC.The people we spoke with brought up the issues themselves.Owners are angry and Marriott's response is making them even more so.
> The Goliath tactic by MVCI and their latest tactical letter about the vote is infuriating lots of owners.They know if a majority of owners get wind of the concerns there will be trouble.
> 
> I still have a hard time comprehending the negativity surrounding  the concerns of reaching all of the owners.


I don't think anyone has a problem with contacting the owners per se, the issue is that it appears a list was obtained without the systems permission, is being used and cannot assure it's privacy and appropriate use.  In effect it appears the list was stolen and if so, that is unethical and likely illegal. On top of that the list is being used to contact those owners and/or to judge whether people are indeed owners.

As I've said before, there is very little documented factual info that has come to light.  That doesn't make the allegations wrong, only unsubstantiated at present.  For the most part it comes down to the representations of one person and those representations are almost certainly a violation of their oath as a member of the BOD.  Only time will tell if that person is being a martyr is just has an axe to grind.  And I'm not really questioning Allan Cohen per se but merely pointing out this comes down mostly to one person's word plus the dollar amounts involved.  

I can't help but wonder what would happen if Marriott formally threatened to walk away.  Given they've made such threat's before and made good on them or else the BOD caved in to their demands, it'd be an interesting exercise.  I guess we could ask owners at Spicebush, Swallowtail or those that owned at the Vail resort their opinion on that issue.  I'd think that the members there have far more to lose if the resort ceased to be a Marriott than the SA.  Plus, as I've said before, it is my belief that even if the allegations are correct AND can be proven, it's unlikely the members will be any better off in the long run.  I understand Marriott was quite heavy handed with Beachplace Towers recently.


----------



## modoaruba

I appreciate everyone's input.
We hooked up with a realtor while in Aruba.
She showed us a condo in a really nice neighborhood in Palm Beach area.
There is a seller who has a 2 BR 2BA LV k and 2 pools across the street.It is 4 yrs old.
The drive to the beach is all of 5 minutes.
Completely furnished with nice stuff. He is willing to take $160,000.MFs are $143/mo.Taxes are negligable.Expenses are electric,water,phone/cable/internet.The condo rents out for about $900/wk and is maintained by the association.

We own 4 weeks at the AOC.Today buying through Marriott would cost us in the high $70,000.Correct me if I'm wrong.
Add on MFs and fees and we end up with a $5,000 bill/yr.Maybe more.
If we try to sell,I wonder if we'll get half of the cost.We can't even rent to cover our fees anymore. 

Do the math. We could spend the $5,000/4 weeks at the Aoc or spend the same for 52 weeks at the condo.The caveat being,we could rent and actually make money.

So no matter what this thread is debating,I'm just PO'd that we bought a timeshare.
IMO,it was not wise for US to have purchased a TS.It has negative returns and is priced along with the fees to a point that is disturbing.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> I appreciate everyone's input.
> We hooked up with a realtor while in Aruba.
> She showed us a condo in a really nice neighborhood in Palm Beach area.
> There is a seller who has a 2 BR 2BA LV k and 2 pools across the street.It is 4 yrs old.
> The drive to the beach is all of 5 minutes.
> Completely furnished with nice stuff. He is willing to take $160,000.MFs are $143/mo.Taxes are negligable.Expenses are electric,water,phone/cable/internet.The condo rents out for about $900/wk and is maintained by the association.
> 
> We own 4 weeks at the AOC.Today buying through Marriott would cost us in the high $70,000.Correct me if I'm wrong.
> Add on MFs and fees and we end up with a $5,000 bill/yr.Maybe more.
> If we try to sell,I wonder if we'll get half of the cost.We can't even rent to cover our fees anymore.
> 
> Do the math. We could spend the $5,000/4 weeks at the Aoc or spend the same for 52 weeks at the condo.The caveat being,we could rent and actually make money.
> 
> So no matter what this thread is debating,I'm just PO'd that we bought a timeshare.
> IMO,it was not wise for US to have purchased a TS.It has negative returns and is priced along with the fees to a point that is disturbing.



It only costs a buck or two to catch the bus. So are you similarly disappointed that you bought a car that immediately depreciated in value, and that you have all those expenses for (gas, insurance, maintenance, etc)?

Rental vs timeshare ownership vs vacation home ownership are all different decisions with relative pluses and minuses. And your analysis omits certain factors that close the gap - ie. cost of insurance, wear/tear of the furnishings, rental expenses, cleaning expenses, opportunity cost of the purchase, hassle of renting, that the expenses are fixed and the income variable, etc. And then you still belong to an HOA which has the opportunity to assess you if the roof is damaged in a tropical storm. And I would question what the HOA maintains. For a $142 a month seems a little low for m/f - better check the date of their last reserve study. 

And given all the timeshares in Aruba on the beach, I would question the rental potential of a condo 5 minutes from the beach. 

If you assume away all of the above then you should probably buy a couple. As they say, the grass is always greener.


----------



## tlwmkw

Modo,

If you buy that condo and the roof needs to be replaced in 10 years, and the air conditioner goes wrong in 10 years, and the stove needs to be replaced in 10 years, then who will pay for the replacements?  Will you demand that the seller, or the original builder/developer, cover some part of the costs?  That is what you are asking Marriott to do.  I don't think that would be reasonable for a condo so how is it for a timeshare?

The fact that the building was once a "rusting steel hulk" that was saved by Marriott doesn't mean that it is by definition a bad building.  This type of situation comes up all the time and does not mean the building will be faulty.  There may be problems at the AOC but how can anyone prove that they all date back to that "rusting steel hulk"?  If it was such a slam dunk then it would all have been settled long ago- there doesn't seem to be any real proof that Marriott knowingly covered up a faulty building.

This fight is all about money and who should pay it.  All the other talk about transparency, etc is a smoke screen.

imo,  tlwmkw


----------



## modoaruba

tlwmkw said:


> Modo,
> 
> If you buy that condo and the roof needs to be replaced in 10 years, and the air conditioner goes wrong in 10 years, and the stove needs to be replaced in 10 years, then who will pay for the replacements?  Will you demand that the seller, or the original builder/developer, cover some part of the costs?  That is what you are asking Marriott to do.  I don't think that would be reasonable for a condo so how is it for a timeshare?
> 
> The fact that the building was once a "rusting steel hulk" that was saved by Marriott doesn't mean that it is by definition a bad building.  This type of situation comes up all the time and does not mean the building will be faulty.  There may be problems at the AOC but how can anyone prove that they all date back to that "rusting steel hulk"?  If it was such a slam dunk then it would all have been settled long ago- there doesn't seem to be any real proof that Marriott knowingly covered up a faulty building.
> 
> This fight is all about money and who should pay it.  All the other talk about transparency, etc is a smoke screen.
> 
> imo,  tlwmkw



You are right.But there will always be more equity on resale for that price of the condo.
The TS MFs will always be there regardless.Replacements and repairs for the condo will vary as needed.
Right now the expenses for the TS is way out of line compared to the going rates of renting and specials at the hotels.When will they come back to the norm?Who knows?But we must pay regardless.
Even though the financial climate might change back to the way things were,how many years will it take to recoup the loss?Does one really believe things will go back to the way it was?
Buying 4 wks at the AOC at $70,000 range will resell at this time for much less.Maybe half?
Buying the condo at that price will always resell for same or more.
Renting the condo is under supervision of the association.There is always supervision.If rentals are at 25% of the year,that would be more than enough to recoup any MFs or replacement costs and then some.Even at 10% rental there might still be a profit.
Real estate has always been a good investment in the long run,as long as you have the time to wait.Many people got rich after the great depression because they purchased real estate.
Right now cash is king and I believe that eventually real estate will go up.
Might take a few years.It's one of those things that they cannot make more of-land.
IMO,TS's will not appreciate as well because they are not meant to be an investment.
Eric's analogy of depreciating values of cars would apply more to TS's than to real estate.
Right now or in the near future , in my opinion ,if you got the money(which is devaluing as I write this)real estate purchase will bring back rewards.
It's always about the money.Especially paying into a loss.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> You are right.But there will always be more equity on resale for that price of the condo.
> 
> Buying the condo at that price will always resell for same or more.
> 
> Renting the condo is under supervision of the association.There is always supervision.If rentals are at 25% of the year,that would be more than enough to recoup any MFs or replacement costs and then some.Even at 10% rental there might still be a profit.



There are million of people right now that would disagree with the underlying premise that real estate will always increase in value. I suspect that dislocation is one reason the condo is priced at the level you indicate. And while I do believe that general principle is still true in the long run, if you needed to liquidate that investment in the next 3-5 years, it might not be as true as you need it to be.

In regards to the economics of the situation, I would just encourage you to crunch the numbers very carefully. Managed rental properties can be good investments when the numbers work, and but the key is making sure you are considering all the fixed costs you will incur in operating the rental property and a reasonable target for number of rented weeks. Particularly one is a less than prime location.

potential rental income (rental rate x expected rental weeks)
less variable rental expenses (cleaning, comm%, etc) 
less  fixed expenses (m/f), utilities, insurance, advertising costs)

And again I would triple check what that $142 a month includes.

And yes, timeshares are more like cars than real estate. Many states require up-front disclaimers in the public offering statements that the buyer understands that the purchase is not an investment.


----------



## Zac495

lovearuba said:


> Hope you are still enjoying your vacations.  Are you going back to Aruba in 2010.  I plan to be there in the summer.



No. I'm going to Cancun - Grand Mayan - and the finger lakes - I rented a house - wow, not with a timeshare. Miss you guys!


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> I appreciate everyone's input.
> We hooked up with a realtor while in Aruba.
> She showed us a condo in a really nice neighborhood in Palm Beach area.
> There is a seller who has a 2 BR 2BA LV k and 2 pools across the street.It is 4 yrs old.
> The drive to the beach is all of 5 minutes.
> Completely furnished with nice stuff. He is willing to take $160,000.MFs are $143/mo.Taxes are negligable.Expenses are electric,water,phone/cable/internet.The condo rents out for about $900/wk and is maintained by the association.
> 
> We own 4 weeks at the AOC.Today buying through Marriott would cost us in the high $70,000.Correct me if I'm wrong.
> Add on MFs and fees and we end up with a $5,000 bill/yr.Maybe more.
> If we try to sell,I wonder if we'll get half of the cost.We can't even rent to cover our fees anymore.
> 
> Do the math. We could spend the $5,000/4 weeks at the Aoc or spend the same for 52 weeks at the condo.The caveat being,we could rent and actually make money.
> 
> So no matter what this thread is debating,I'm just PO'd that we bought a timeshare.
> IMO,it was not wise for US to have purchased a TS.It has negative returns and is priced along with the fees to a point that is disturbing.


I think we all have to think about such calculations for an area we wish to return to time after time.  We had the same questions for HHI  and have looked twice at Condo's.  For that area a Condo in a situation as we would want would be somewhere in the $450-750K amount depending on how much compromise we'd be willing to make.  The yearly costs in terms of regime fees, taxes, etc would be in the $20-25K range/yr.  If we bought and rented it, we'd likely recoup about 70% of the yearly outlay.  Of course HH is more seasonal than Aruba.  I own (now) 5 summer weeks on HH at a total cost about $90K and yearly fees about $5K.  Our decision was that it wasn't worth the outlay and expense because the best case scenario is we'd break even after management fees and our "profit" would be the equity increase as the loan paid down and values hopefully went up.  But we'd have a major risk of upkeep, damage, hurricanes, etc.  IF we stepped away from the Beach, we could get something just as nice for 20-30% with less other fees but we wouldn't be happy.  

IMO you can't compare a beachfront location to something a 5 min drive.  If you want beach front, you have to pay for it, if you're happy with off the beach, it should be MUCH cheaper buy or rent. I've bought a number of timeshares in Aruba that were essentially beachfront for a song.  As an example, 4th of July 3 BR unit for $1200 including transfers.

I'd also question the idea that there will always be equity of a market for such a condo, it might be true but the last couple of years have definitely taught us that it's not always so.

IMO, the bottom line is that a condo is a gamble far more so than is a top quality timeshare.  It might work out but you're playing with fire and it only really makes sense if you can get the use yourself.  Once you get to the "I have to rent it to be able to afford it" situation, you're sunk.  I had a next door neighbor that was into flipping timeshares in the FL panhandle. They'd buy preconstruction then sell them once actives sales were going good.  They likely made $3 million or so doing this over a few years and lost it all in a few months a couple of years ago.  They had to sell their home and move into one of the condo's they owned and couldn't sell.  They also had to sell the new home they had built and never actually moved into it.


----------



## modoaruba

what I'm saying is that today,if one is sitting on cash and does not need to mortgage,given the financial crises where people are in desperation to sell,it is a good time to buy.
I don't think we hit bottom yet.But one cannot time the market.
We are looking to spend quite a few weeks if not months in Aruba as I get closer to retirement.
A 5 minute drive to the beach does not bother us on such a small island.It will be a shorter drive to the grocery and gas station.Don't have to worry about driving in snow or ice.Either way,no big deal.
If however a desperate sale occurs on the ocean front we'll definetly look there.Right now is a buyers market and time is on the buyers side for now.
This is our goal for now and obviously does not apply to many.


----------



## ecwinch

Were you of that mindset when you bought your week at AOC and could you of have gotten that same deal then?


----------



## modoaruba

ecwinch said:


> Were you of that mindset when you bought your week at AOC and could you of have gotten that same deal then?



When we bought our weeks over 10 yrs ago we paid 1/2 of today's cost and MFs were less than 1/2 of what they are now.It made more sense playing with those numbers.
Now we realize that we did not expect fees to be so high and that the resale value puts us back to square one.So all the financial benefits we enjoyed back in the day are slowly being chipped away at.
We might be nearing or exceeded our break even point.

We also have been buying real estate in Aruba for a few years now.
We have bought land and sold at a profit.The last piece of land we bought was 4 years ago and still have it.Today it is worth less than it was a year ago but still is worth more than we paid for it.Our regret is that we did not buy earlier on.Taxes are negligable,so holding on to it is not a problem.We don't buy property if we cannot afford to hold on to it.So emergency liquidation is not a concern.Just old school.If we cannot afford to buy for cash,we don't buy.
If we bought property at the time we bought our TS,we would be ahead of the curve because Aruban real estate vastly increased.
That's why we believe, considering today's financial crises,and that many people over extended themselves here and abroad,that it might be an opportune time to buy.
As we get older our needs and outlooks change.It's easy to look back and see what could have been.So,our TS is 0 growth or less after 11 years.Our property now is at 25% growth,down from 50% at he high after 4 years.If we bought the property 11 years ago we might be at 100% growth.But who knew?


----------



## timeos2

*Resort actually shut down - owner lawsuit part of blame*



SueDonJ said:


> As Dean said so clearly here, the BOD has no choice but to defend (itself and Marriott as the resort's management company) against the legal challenge(s) it faces from the "concerned owners group."  No choice.  Any BOD member who would vote against a legal defense in the face of a legal challenge has no business being on the BOD.



Now the whole story isn't the same, no two ever are, but here is an extreme example of what can happen if developers/owners fail to take actions needed to properly fund resorts.  In this case it appears the developer had only sold about 25% of the timeshare units and the promised renovations never happened (no reserves set aside according to the published minutes). Then an owner elected Board took over and tried to get a special assessment in addition to developer funding. Somewhere along the line a "concerned owners group" had initiated a lawsuit, which is at least in part being blamed for the collapse. 

Extreme case for sure, but a cautionary tale of what can actually occur if too many roadblocks to funding or unreasonable demands are made at any resort and what outside expenses such as owner lawsuits can lead to.  Resorts can and will be shuttered if things get too bad. Fortunately for Marriott owners their resort isn't likely to reach such a bad ending as this example did, but nothing is beyond possibility if pressed far enough.  Best if compromise is a key part of all actions on both sides to avoid such drastic measures being needed.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> When we bought our weeks over 10 yrs ago we paid 1/2 of today's cost and MFs were less than 1/2 of what they are now.It made more sense playing with those numbers.
> Now we realize that we did not expect fees to be so high and that the resale value puts us back to square one.So all the financial benefits we enjoyed back in the day are slowly being chipped away at.
> We might be nearing or exceeded our break even point.
> 
> We also have been buying real estate in Aruba for a few years now.
> We have bought land and sold at a profit.The last piece of land we bought was 4 years ago and still have it.Today it is worth less than it was a year ago but still is worth more than we paid for it.Our regret is that we did not buy earlier on.Taxes are negligable,so holding on to it is not a problem.We don't buy property if we cannot afford to hold on to it.So emergency liquidation is not a concern.Just old school.If we cannot afford to buy for cash,we don't buy.
> If we bought property at the time we bought our TS,we would be ahead of the curve because Aruban real estate vastly increased.
> That's why we believe, considering today's financial crises,and that many people over extended themselves here and abroad,that it might be an opportune time to buy.
> As we get older our needs and outlooks change.It's easy to look back and see what could have been.So,our TS is 0 growth or less after 11 years.Our property now is at 25% growth,down from 50% at he high after 4 years.If we bought the property 11 years ago we might be at 100% growth.But who knew?



It's interesting how we all have a different perspective of timeshare purchases, land purchases and vacation condo/home ownership, isn't it?  We think the same as you do about not financing any of them and have pretty much the same expectations as you do for land and condos, but we sure do differ wildly on our timeshare expectations!

We bought Marriott timeshares because we wanted the level of resort vacations that MVCI offers, knowing that timeshares are not a financial investment in the sense that home- or land-ownership can be.  The value we expected is in usage (being able to reserve a specific villa configuration that may not be available through a rental market,) because we knew MVCI is a relatively more expensive way to vacation than some other timeshares or with renting.  Both of our resorts appear to have a solid reserve fund and fees in line with other similar resorts.  But we bought at Barony knowing that it would be due for a ten-year refurb 2-3 years after our purchase, and this year right on schedule the 2010 m/f includes a $90 hike in the reserve.  I think way back in this thread somewhere I mentioned that it wouldn't surprise me if a special assessment was going to be levied this year, but thankfully instead the large hike in the reserve appears to be sufficient to cover the refurb as well as a cushion for the next several years.  The difference between your resort and mine, in this case, appears to be that Barony's BODs have been more pro-active over the life of the resort as far as the financials.

Condos/vacation homes are a completely different animal.  We don't have the time or inclination to be absentee landlords, even if a rental management company is involved.  And though the timing of such a purchase for you at the time you entered timesharing would have held its financial value, we would have taken a bath if we'd purchased an ocean-front condo on Hilton Head the first year we bought from MVCI.  We would have been purchasing at the height of the market!  Plus, one odd thing for me is that I wanted no part of owning a stand-alone home or condo that strangers would be sleeping in while I wasn't there.  With timeshares or vacation rentals I expect that; with my second home it would give me the heebie-jeebies.  

We did purchase land this year in a development just off-island to Hilton Head where we intend to retire five years or so down the line, and it should (knock on wood) increase in value as the market rebounds.  We paid less than what it originally sold for about ten years ago, and less even further than what the people from whom we purchased bought it for three years ago.  But of course as others have said there are no guarantees in real estate, so we'll hope for the best like everyone else speculating in this market.

Interesting turn in this discussion - thanks for adding it, Modo.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> When we bought our weeks over 10 yrs ago we paid 1/2 of today's cost and MFs were less than 1/2 of what they are now.It made more sense playing with those numbers.
> Now we realize that we did not expect fees to be so high and that the resale value puts us back to square one.So all the financial benefits we enjoyed back in the day are slowly being chipped away at.
> We might be nearing or exceeded our break even point.
> 
> We also have been buying real estate in Aruba for a few years now.
> We have bought land and sold at a profit.The last piece of land we bought was 4 years ago and still have it.Today it is worth less than it was a year ago but still is worth more than we paid for it.Our regret is that we did not buy earlier on.Taxes are negligable,so holding on to it is not a problem.We don't buy property if we cannot afford to hold on to it.So emergency liquidation is not a concern.Just old school.If we cannot afford to buy for cash,we don't buy.
> If we bought property at the time we bought our TS,we would be ahead of the curve because Aruban real estate vastly increased.
> That's why we believe, considering today's financial crises,and that many people over extended themselves here and abroad,that it might be an opportune time to buy.
> As we get older our needs and outlooks change.It's easy to look back and see what could have been.So,our TS is 0 growth or less after 11 years.Our property now is at 25% growth,down from 50% at he high after 4 years.If we bought the property 11 years ago we might be at 100% growth.But who knew?



But timeshares are not real estate investments. If you purchase in Washington State or California, it is a required disclosure at purchase.

If you bought with that expectation, then I can understand your position.
I personally am not an advocate of playing "woulda, coulda, shoulda". I think you make the best decision you can with the available information, and do not look back. We can always make perfect decisions with the benefits of hindsight, and the turns in the road could just easily went the other way.


----------



## Luckybee

timeos2 said:


> Now the whole story isn't the same, no two ever are, but here is an extreme example of what can happen if developers/owners fail to take actions needed to properly fund resorts.  In this case it appears the developer had only sold about 25% of the timeshare units and the promised renovations never happened (no reserves set aside according to the published minutes). Then an owner elected Board took over and tried to get a special assessment in addition to developer funding. Somewhere along the line a "concerned owners group" had initiated a lawsuit, which is at least in part being blamed for the collapse.
> 
> Extreme case for sure, but a cautionary tale of what can actually occur if too many roadblocks to funding or unreasonable demands are made at any resort and what outside expenses such as owner lawsuits can lead to.  Resorts can and will be shuttered if things get too bad. Fortunately for Marriott owners their resort isn't likely to reach such a bad ending as this example did, but nothing is beyond possibility if pressed far enough.  Best if compromise is a key part of all actions on both sides to avoid such drastic measures being needed.



Timeos

 Im not at all surprised that the management at the Aruban would attempt to lay blame anywhere but where it belongs in that case. I think you'll find though if you investigate further, and with some time that there were some pretty serious allegations levied against certain individuals which may lead to "other" proceedings down the road. To blame the "lawsuit" in that case would be like blaming a slight drizzle for a flooded basement ! Quite frankly with everything that was going on there the lawsuit was probably the least of the problems....lol . From what I've just been been told today the vast majority of owners are pretty relieved  now in that they are more hopeful now that their resort can be salvaged.


----------



## ecwinch

"Unfortunately, this has not been made any easier by the litigation brought on by a small group of timeshare owners"

I fail to see how this statement represents blaming the problems on the "lawsuit" as you maintain. 

I think John is illustrating that a small concerned owners group can be at cross-purposes withe needs of the membership of a whole. While that group might see that they have the moral high-ground in pursuing their agenda, the net affect can be to the detriment of the resort and the membership as a whole. 

That while they see their purpose as noble and that they are "serving" the membership of a whole, they actually might be doing more harm than good.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> "Unfortunately, this has not been made any easier by the litigation brought on by a small group of timeshare owners"
> 
> I fail to see how this statement represents blaming the problems on the "lawsuit" as you maintain.
> 
> I think John is illustrating that a small concerned owners group can be at cross-purposes withe needs of the membership of a whole. While that group might see that they have the moral high-ground in pursuing their agenda, the net affect can be to the detriment of the resort and the membership as a whole.
> 
> That while they see their purpose as noble and that they are "serving" the membership of a whole, they actually might be doing more harm than good.



Obviously you didnt read my entire post....bottom line they didnt do "more harm than good" and they were not at "cross purposes with the membership as a whole"...they did what was needed under the circumstances they were in....and if you check you'll find most owners were on board with the actions....but as usual you wish to debate everything....so dont take my word for it...find out for yourself if you are really interested which somehow I cant help but think you would only be if it could somehow assist your crusade against the Ocean Club owners


----------



## ecwinch

Does this mark an end to the "keep it civil" timeout?

The link nor your post provided any substantial details that support your assertion. So I am somewhat confused on how owners would find it favorable that the resort is shut down for 45+ days.


----------



## SueDonJ

There are quite a few public forums in which The Aruban situation is discussed but I don't have a good enough understanding of the timeshare systems involved or the total number of owners to say with any certainty why things played out there the way they did.  But I've looked at several of them anyway and come away thinking that the worldwide economic crisis combined with poor development and management - including illegal maneuverings by the management company - are more at fault for the sad financial picture today, but certainly the legal burdens imposed by the ownership group have contributed somewhat.  Luckybee, I haven't seen anything that verifies what you say about a majority of owners being in support of any legal actions - it appears that the four or five sites that I did look at are populated by the same group of folks.  I'm not saying you're incorrect, just that I didn't find either how many owners would constitute a majority or confirmation of support by a majority.

Interestingly, it appears that The Aruban is related to the La Cabana resort that Dean has mentioned in this thread - maybe it's the building that split from that resort?   Is that correct, Dean?

Also interestingly, every owner website related to The Aruban that I did find is an open forum at least for reading.  A few even solicited input from non-owners who are timeshare-savvy to help them with their efforts.


----------



## Luckybee

SueDonJ said:


> There are quite a few public forums in which The Aruban situation is discussed but I don't have a good enough understanding of the timeshare systems involved or the total number of owners to say with any certainty why things played out there the way they did.  But I've looked at several of them anyway and come away thinking that the worldwide economic crisis combined with poor development and management - including illegal maneuverings by the management company - are more at fault for the sad financial picture today, but certainly the legal burdens imposed by the ownership group have contributed somewhat.  Luckybee, I haven't seen anything that verifies what you say about a majority of owners being in support of any legal actions - it appears that the four or five sites that I did look at are populated by the same group of folks.  I'm not saying you're incorrect, just that I didn't find either how many owners would constitute a majority or confirmation of support by a majority.
> 
> Interestingly, it appears that The Aruban is related to the La Cabana resort that Dean has mentioned in this thread - maybe it's the building that split from that resort?   Is that correct, Dean?
> 
> Also interestingly, every owner website related to The Aruban that I did find is an open forum at least for reading.  A few even solicited input from non-owners who are timeshare-savvy to help them with their efforts.



They also have a private board just for owners and it is not open just for reading...you must be a registered owner to read or post....and yes they are the timeshare that split from LaCabana.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> Does this mark an end to the "keep it civil" timeout?
> 
> The link nor your post provided any substantial details that support your assertion. So I am somewhat confused on how owners would find it favorable that the resort is shut down for 45+ days.



As I said if you are interested you can follow up on your own....and how was I not being civil ?


----------



## ecwinch

For those interested in a more complete accounting of the issues, here is the link to the concerned owners website for the Aruban. It is nice to see a group that asks for transparency to do the same. EDIT: Some sections of the board are member-only. 

http://www.thearubanforum.com/viewforum.php?f=53&sid=2a0a5df573adfcd267ac69a9f1beeadd


----------



## Dean

timeos2 said:


> Now the whole story isn't the same, no two ever are, but here is an extreme example of what can happen if developers/owners fail to take actions needed to properly fund resorts.  In this case it appears the developer had only sold about 25% of the timeshare units and the promised renovations never happened (no reserves set aside according to the published minutes). Then an owner elected Board took over and tried to get a special assessment in addition to developer funding. Somewhere along the line a "concerned owners group" had initiated a lawsuit, which is at least in part being blamed for the collapse.
> 
> Extreme case for sure, but a cautionary tale of what can actually occur if too many roadblocks to funding or unreasonable demands are made at any resort and what outside expenses such as owner lawsuits can lead to.  Resorts can and will be shuttered if things get too bad. Fortunately for Marriott owners their resort isn't likely to reach such a bad ending as this example did, but nothing is beyond possibility if pressed far enough.  Best if compromise is a key part of all actions on both sides to avoid such drastic measures being needed.


What is now (or was) the Aruban Resort is the other half to the story I quoted above.  It was in bankruptcy and disrepair for several years.  I haven't kept up with the happenings since but I feel it was a doomed resort once it became separated from La Cabana.



modoaruba said:


> what I'm saying is that today,if one is sitting on cash and does not need to mortgage,given the financial crises where people are in desperation to sell,it is a good time to buy.
> I don't think we hit bottom yet.But one cannot time the market.
> We are looking to spend quite a few weeks if not months in Aruba as I get closer to retirement.
> A 5 minute drive to the beach does not bother us on such a small island.It will be a shorter drive to the grocery and gas station.Don't have to worry about driving in snow or ice.Either way,no big deal.
> If however a desperate sale occurs on the ocean front we'll definetly look there.Right now is a buyers market and time is on the buyers side for now.
> This is our goal for now and obviously does not apply to many.


No doubt the choices are different now with different risks and costs than 3 or 4 years ago.  Certainly one can get a better "value" for a non beach location than for ocean front or similar though usually the OF option will retain it's value both for sales and rentals far better than the off beach option will.  My conclusion with HH was that unless it made sense to buy without rental income, it didn't make sense to buy counting on rentals.  If you can pay cash for it, that certainly shifts the equation but for all options including timeshares.  For HH I came to the conclusion that owning timeshares THERE made far more sense for peak times than a condo FOR US and that for off peak I could do even better than owning by simply by trading in with Marriott.  We certainly would not have been happy a mile off the beach.  Even a lower unit in the back of an OF resort would have been pushing it for us.  Of course I say that as I just got my confirmation for a 1 BR at the Surf Club for Jan, 2011.


----------



## modoaruba

No doubt the choices are different now with different risks and costs than 3 or 4 years ago.  Certainly one can get a better "value" for a non beach location than for ocean front or similar though usually the OF option will retain it's value both for sales and rentals far better than the off beach option will.  My conclusion with HH was that unless it made sense to buy without rental income, it didn't make sense to buy counting on rentals.  If you can pay cash for it, that certainly shifts the equation but for all options including timeshares.  For HH I came to the conclusion that owning timeshares THERE made far more sense for peak times than a condo FOR US and that for off peak I could do even better than owning by simply by trading in with Marriott.  We certainly would not have been happy a mile off the beach.  Even a lower unit in the back of an OF resort would have been pushing it for us.  Of course I say that as I just got my confirmation for a 1 BR at the Surf Club for Jan, 2011.[/QUOTE]

I understand that a top floor ocean front is prime but comes with a premium.
When vacationing we do not spend a lot of time in the room so location of view is secondary.But the view would be nice.
Same with purchasing a residence.Ocean front is ideal but secondary to price point to US.
If we can find a premium location at a reasonable price it becomes a no brainer.
An analogy that comes to mind is since we travel on air miles,we have a choice of using 25,000 points for coach or 50,000 points for business class.
For a 4 hour flight we choose coach and get twice as many trips.No leather seats nor cheap wine.Oh well.
Dean,there'll always be chocolate and vanilla,we make the choice for ourselves.
It's a beautiful thing.Either way,we are where we want to be.Can't ask for much more.
We stayed at the Surf Club last September.Enjoy!


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> I understand that a top floor ocean front is prime but comes with a premium.
> When vacationing we do not spend a lot of time in the room so location of view is secondary.But the view would be nice.
> Same with purchasing a residence.Ocean front is ideal but secondary to price point to US.
> If we can find a premium location at a reasonable price it becomes a no brainer.
> An analogy that comes to mind is since we travel on air miles,we have a choice of using 25,000 points for coach or 50,000 points for business class.
> For a 4 hour flight we choose coach and get twice as many trips.No leather seats nor cheap wine.Oh well.
> Dean,there'll always be chocolate and vanilla,we make the choice for ourselves.
> It's a beautiful thing.Either way,we are where we want to be.Can't ask for much more.
> We stayed at the Surf Club last September.Enjoy!


I think there are resort oriented people and destination oriented people though most of us are in between.  The resort IS important to us as for location, quality, amenities, view (at times and definitely for beach locations) though we want to go to nice overall places as well.  We were at the Surf Club Jan of this year so we'll be back 2 years later.  In both cases traded a lessor 1 BR with a negligible buy in and yearly fees much less than those in Aruba.  We are empty nesters and pretty flexible and tend to prefer shoulder seasons for most locations so the exchanging works well for us.


----------



## marksue

Question: What is the status of the planned façade maintenance project at the resort?

Answer: MVCI recently funded efforts to develop a project scope, obtain preliminary bids from six contractors, and prepare a presentation of various options for the Board to review and consider. Subsequently, the Board reviewed a list of regular maintenance items as well as a list of additional items which, if completed in the short term, may allow the Association to realize cost savings or other advantages. While the Board completed its review, MVCI continued to work with the most competitive contractors to focus the scope of their work and obtain the most favorable pricing possible based on the Board's direction. The Association has nearly $600,000 in reserve funding approved for this project. In addition to the façade maintenance, which will be funded by the Association, MVCI will voluntarily make a one-time contribution of approximately $1M to fund optional façade improvements that were recommended by a certified architect based on the specific impact of the Aruban climate on the building during the last 10 years. These optional works will further enhance the ability of the building to withstand harsh climate conditions. 



Planned Facade Refurbishment Process
• Just like your home, our building needs to be repainted periodically. This is especially true in Aruba’s harsh climate with ever-present wind and relentless sun. Beginning in early 2010, the building will be repainted with a waterproof paint specifically designed for stucco and our extreme climate. While the scaffolding is in place, windows and sliding glass doors will be re-caulked and work will be done on patios to extend their useful life. Please note there may be some noise during this process but careful effort will be taken to limit the work near occupied villas.

The reserves had this project as an already planned project for some years; unfortunately, due to the increases in local taxes, customs, duties, shipping, permit processes, etc. on the island this project may have been under-funded by the prior Board.*THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEENTHIS BOARD AND THE PREVIOUS BOARD IS ALLAN COHEN. WHY IS THE BOARD TRYING TO DEFLECT RESPONSIBILITY BY BLAMING IT ON THE PREVIOUS BOARD* The present Board worked with MVCI and was able to secure the extra funding by the management company to the benefit of the Association.


The façade work, similar to what the neighboring Marriott Resort recently did, is presently scheduled to begin in February 2010 and continue to August 2010. There will be 18 villas at a time from the first floor up to the sixth that will have scaffolding in front of the balconies and each week we will move the scaffolding to the next 18 balconies. Work will primarily be done around the balcony doors, balcony tile, villa window frames, and two coats of elastomeric waterproof paint.*THE BUILDING HAS BEEN LEAKING AROUND THE DOORS AND THE WINDOWS SINCE THE BUILDING OPENED. ONCE AGAIN MARRIOTT IS MAKING THE OWNERS PAY FOR A SUBSTANDARD BUILDING AND USING ARUBA CLIMATE AS THE REASON. THE DAMAGE FROM OMAR WAS DUE TO TH LACK OF WEATHER PROOFING, YET NOW WE NEED TO WETHEPROOF THE BUILDING. WHY WAS IT NOT WATERPROFFED WEHN BUILT.*

*STILL CAN NOT GET AN ANSWER IF THERE WILL BE ANOTHER ASSESMENT TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE. THE BOARD HAS REFUSED NUMEROUS REQUESTS AS TO HOW IT WILL BE FUNDED*



*HAPPY AND HEALTHY HOLIDAYS TO ALL*


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> *THE BUILDING HAS BEEN LEAKING AROUND THE DOORS AND THE WINDOWS SINCE THE BUILDING OPENED. ONCE AGAIN MARRIOTT IS MAKING THE OWNERS PAY FOR A SUBSTANDARD BUILDING AND USING ARUBA CLIMATE AS THE REASON. THE DAMAGE FROM OMAR WAS DUE TO TH LACK OF WEATHER PROOFING, YET NOW WE NEED TO WETHEPROOF THE BUILDING. WHY WAS IT NOT WATERPROFFED WEHN BUILT.*


The questions isn't so much whether the problem has been long standing per se but rather whether Marriott knowingly and purposefully sold a product they knew up front was defective and would likely require such expenditures early.  Even then, having the owners pay for the added life gained by doing the work now (or the prorated portion for the value they've received) as well as the tag along work while the crews and materials are on site is still reasonable.


----------



## lovearuba

*not sure I agree*



Dean said:


> The questions isn't so much whether the problem has been long standing per se but rather whether Marriott knowingly and purposefully sold a product they knew up front was defective and would likely require such expenditures early. Even then, having the owners pay for the added life gained by doing the work now (or the prorated portion for the value they've received) as well as the tag along work while the crews and materials are on site is still reasonable.


 
Hi Dean
First and foremost, let me say that I wish everyone a wonderful holiday season.

I do however want to understand why its okay to expect owners to pay for repairs that were the result of buying into a defective building.  I understand expenses that are normal wear and tear on a new building but it just doesnt seem reasonable that the owners have to pay for repairs that were caused by the condition of the building upon purchase.

I am one of those owners that witnessed the numerous flooding areas in the building early on.  I've passed buckets of water in the hallways that were placed there to catch the water pouring out of the ceiling.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> Hi Dean
> First and foremost, let me say that I wish everyone a wonderful holiday season.
> 
> I do however want to understand why its okay to expect owners to pay for repairs that were the result of buying into a defective building.  I understand expenses that are normal wear and tear on a new building but it just doesnt seem reasonable that the owners have to pay for repairs that were caused by the condition of the building upon purchase.
> 
> I am one of those owners that witnessed the numerous flooding areas in the building early on.  I've passed buckets of water in the hallways that were placed there to catch the water pouring out of the ceiling.


As I said early and as I said above, the issue that is core to this complaint (IMO) is whether Marriott knew (or should have known) early on during active sales about such issues, not whether the issues existed or whether Marriott found out later.  If they acted in good faith and followed proper procedures for such a situation, that's all they can do.  If they didn't, it'll be incumbent on the person filing the complaint to either prove that OR to at least convince a judge they did know.  If things happen that were unexpected based on that approach, the members should be responsible.  Regardless, much of the expenses in question are expenses that would eventually have come about no matter what.  Therefore, it is reasonable for the owners to pay for the years they did get out of the entity in question even if Marriott were truly at fault or put another way, pay for the extra years they should get on the back end for the work that is being done.  Lets say you buy a car and you later found out they did not sell the car as advertised.  I had a friend that bought a corvette some years ago.  Come to find out they had dropped it off the trailer when delivering it and broke the nose off.  They sold it as new and presumable undamaged.  He still had to pay for the miles he had driven it and reasonably so.


----------



## marksue

Dean I understand your point. But the expenses that are occurring would not be occurring at this time and would occur in the future.  Paying years out for these repairs would allow the reserve fund to build and not require special assessments to the owners. 

Marriott had to know the building was defective.  It was leaking from day 1 and they were responsible for the maintenance.  In fact a group of sales people had brought suit against Marriott in Aruba due to the conditions of the building.  If Marriott had properly sealed the building how much money would have been saved because owners would not have had to pay for the ongoing maintenance caused by the water damage caused by the lack of waterproofing and leaks in the roof.

Why should a roof have to be replaced in 10 years?  There is no way Marriott did not know about this situation.  They have engineering reports that show the water damage, they have repair bills, they had to place water buckets through the building every time it rained.  I think Marriott is smart enough to know there was a problem, ye tthey continue to sell units and not address the issue.

This is what we the owners are upset about.  The way Marriott has hidden the poor quality of the building and now using the Aruba climate as an excuse to finally fix it and force the owners to pay for something they should have fixed years ago.


----------



## timeos2

*It is not a windfall but a question of fairness*



marksue said:


> Dean I understand your point. But the expenses that are occurring would not be occurring at this time and would occur in the future.  Paying years out for these repairs would allow the reserve fund to build and not require special assessments to the owners.
> 
> Marriott had to know the building was defective.  It was leaking from day 1 and they were responsible for the maintenance.  In fact a group of sales people had brought suit against Marriott in Aruba due to the conditions of the building.  If Marriott had properly sealed the building how much money would have been saved because owners would not have had to pay for the ongoing maintenance caused by the water damage caused by the lack of waterproofing and leaks in the roof.
> 
> Why should a roof have to be replaced in 10 years?  There is no way Marriott did not know about this situation.  They have engineering reports that show the water damage, they have repair bills, they had to place water buckets through the building every time it rained.  I think Marriott is smart enough to know there was a problem, ye tthey continue to sell units and not address the issue.
> 
> This is what we the owners are upset about.  The way Marriott has hidden the poor quality of the building and now using the Aruba climate as an excuse to finally fix it and force the owners to pay for something they should have fixed years ago.



It is very common that construction codes or procedures of a decade ago do not meet todays standards.  If the work done at the time was of reasonable quality and it gave a decade of service then it would be very hard to prove that Marriott or whoever did it "knew" it would fail.  All work eventually wears out and requires upgrade or replacement.  It does seem quite reasonable that whatever service it did provide would be covered by those that got the benefit of that useful life - the owners. To expect Marriott or the builder or anyone else to cover it 100% is basically getting something for nothing and, as those who watch Judge Judy or The Peoples Court should be well aware of, courts don't make thing better than they should be but put people in the spot they would be IF the extraordinary problem hadn't occurred. In this case Marriott paying a big percentage of the work would seem to bring owners to exactly to where they would have been after a decade of the harsh environment their building exists in.  It is over reaching to say a third party has to eat the whole cost and the owners pay nothing.  They did benefit and have to pay for at least that value.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*You Have An Excellent Case.  Now, How Much Justice Can You Afford ?*




timeos2 said:


> Marriott paying a big percentage of the work would seem to bring owners to exactly to where they would have been after a decade of the harsh environment their building exists in.  It is over reaching to say a third party has to eat the whole cost and the owners pay nothing.


A guy goes to a lawyer for consultation.  He wants help in a dispute with his brother over dividing their father's estate. 

The lawyer says, "I think I can help you work out a fair settlement." 

The client says, "Shux, if I wanted a _fair_ settlement I wouldn't need a lawyer." 

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


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> Dean I understand your point. But the expenses that are occurring would not be occurring at this time and would occur in the future.  Paying years out for these repairs would allow the reserve fund to build and not require special assessments to the owners.
> 
> Marriott had to know the building was defective.  It was leaking from day 1 and they were responsible for the maintenance.  In fact a group of sales people had brought suit against Marriott in Aruba due to the conditions of the building.  If Marriott had properly sealed the building how much money would have been saved because owners would not have had to pay for the ongoing maintenance caused by the water damage caused by the lack of waterproofing and leaks in the roof.
> 
> Why should a roof have to be replaced in 10 years?  There is no way Marriott did not know about this situation.  They have engineering reports that show the water damage, they have repair bills, they had to place water buckets through the building every time it rained.  I think Marriott is smart enough to know there was a problem, ye tthey continue to sell units and not address the issue.
> 
> This is what we the owners are upset about.  The way Marriott has hidden the poor quality of the building and now using the Aruba climate as an excuse to finally fix it and force the owners to pay for something they should have fixed years ago.


I think there's every possibility Marriott didn't know.  But as I said, the onus is on those questioning it to either prove that Marriott knew or convince a Judge that they did in the absence of such proof.  IMO, the question of why the roof has to be replaced is irrelevant at this point, the real question is who's going to pay for it.  The first place to look would be the contractor that did the work originally.  In the absence of any help there, the owners are the one's responsible.  The owners are going to get an additional 10 years or more extra down the road before the work will need to be done again, it's reasonable they pay for that added benefit.  Also, any extra costs due to current codes that would not have been in place at the original instillation are also reasonable for the owners to be responsible for.  

Based on the two posts above it appears that some owners want to take the stance that the fact that the roof needs to be replaced early is proof enough of wrongdoing because they "had to know" and that the owners shouldn't have to pay for the use they did get out of the fixtures.  I could not disagree more on both counts.



> THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEENTHIS BOARD AND THE PREVIOUS BOARD IS ALLAN COHEN. WHY IS THE BOARD TRYING TO DEFLECT RESPONSIBILITY BY BLAMING IT ON THE PREVIOUS BOARD


Maybe, but that difference was the chairman, just just a single member.  Plus I don't read the resort statement as laying blame on the BOD but in explaining why the costs are so much higher than expected.  The truth is it was underfunded by the BOD, the question then becomes why.  I suspect it's a multi factor issue that includes all of the components mentioned in the resort statement plus the idea that it's having to occur earlier than they expected.  



> The client says, "Shux, if I wanted a fair settlement I wouldn't need a lawyer."


It's been said that any good humor has at least an element of truth to it, maybe even too much in this situation.


----------



## modoaruba

Happy holidays to all.

As this saga continues it's opening the eyes of the unknowing as to what possibilities awaits owners of TSs.
It's wonderful that Marriott is contributing to the refurbishment.But it does not take away the pain away from the owners who have to come up with an unprecedented amount of fees.Especially in these times.
I know that upkeep is necessary for just about everything we own,but a vacation spot where one goes for a short period of time should be without future financial guess work.
I fear that if a catastrophic act occurs,who would be financially reponsible to bring things back to normal?What if the TS cannot be restored?Do we loose our invetment?
I am beginning to ask questions that I never would have thought of before.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> I fear that if a catastrophic act occurs,who would be financially reponsible to bring things back to normal?What if the TS cannot be restored?Do we loose our invetment?
> I am beginning to ask questions that I never would have thought of before.


If something catastrophic happens there are several components.  First you see what insurance will pay, then you decide if it's worth rebuilding the lost components.  If the decision is not to rebuild, expenses are paid and the remainder (along with any reserves) is split among the owners.  At that point the owners affected are SOL.  For example, if one building were destroyed and not rebuilt but others were OK or fixable, only those who technically owned in the part not rebuilt would cease to be owners.  With points systems you might or might not be able to use your points while things were being rebuilt.  With DVC you can use your points at other resorts unless there has been a formal decision to not rebuild then you no longer own those points.  

IMO it's always best to assume pretty much the worst with timeshares and hope for the best.


----------



## lovearuba

*similar?*

this whole situation seems like a problem I am having with a new canon camera.  It takes blurry pictures. It is under warranty, purchased in June and has been sent back to Canon twice. Both times they claimed to have made repairs and sent it back.  The darn camera cannot take a picture that is not blurry.  Canon insists its working according to specs.  I continue to challenge a camera that does not take clear pictures.  Is it because the camera in general is a piece of crap and Canon does not want to admit to its defects or is it because they think blurry pictures (leaky windows) is okay.  Knowing that the camera is defective or finding out afterwards that the building was defective should not be put on the owner.  The company selling the product should be responsible for insuring it meets specifications (in Marriotts case, up to Marriott standards).

We bought the camera because of Canons reputation and we bought the ocean club because of Marriotts name.  Neither one are living up to their expectations and I should not have to accept a defective product.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> this whole situation seems like a problem I am having with a new canon camera.  It takes blurry pictures. It is under warranty, purchased in June and has been sent back to Canon twice. Both times they claimed to have made repairs and sent it back.  The darn camera cannot take a picture that is not blurry.  Canon insists its working according to specs.  I continue to challenge a camera that does not take clear pictures.  Is it because the camera in general is a piece of crap and Canon does not want to admit to its defects or is it because they think blurry pictures (leaky windows) is okay.  Knowing that the camera is defective or finding out afterwards that the building was defective should not be put on the owner.  The company selling the product should be responsible for insuring it meets specifications (in Marriotts case, up to Marriott standards).
> 
> We bought the camera because of Canons reputation and we bought the ocean club because of Marriotts name.  Neither one are living up to their expectations and I should not have to accept a defective product.


In your example the camera would have worked correctly for 2-3 years.


----------



## cruisin

marksue said:


> Dean I understand your point. But the expenses that are occurring would not be occurring at this time and would occur in the future.  Paying years out for these repairs would allow the reserve fund to build and not require special assessments to the owners.
> 
> Marriott had to know the building was defective.  It was leaking from day 1 and they were responsible for the maintenance.  In fact a group of sales people had brought suit against Marriott in Aruba due to the conditions of the building.  If Marriott had properly sealed the building how much money would have been saved because owners would not have had to pay for the ongoing maintenance caused by the water damage caused by the lack of waterproofing and leaks in the roof.
> 
> Why should a roof have to be replaced in 10 years?  There is no way Marriott did not know about this situation.  They have engineering reports that show the water damage, they have repair bills, they had to place water buckets through the building every time it rained.  I think Marriott is smart enough to know there was a problem, ye tthey continue to sell units and not address the issue.
> 
> This is what we the owners are upset about.  The way Marriott has hidden the poor quality of the building and now using the Aruba climate as an excuse to finally fix it and force the owners to pay for something they should have fixed years ago.



How old was the roof when it was failing? If it was good for 10 years, then maybe that's not too bad, if it was bad and causing damage after the 1st year, then waiting 10 years to fix it, does not really mean that owners got 10 years out of it? Am I missing something? I do not own in Aruba, but am sad to see this at a Marriott resort.


----------



## lovearuba

*I am not following you*



Dean said:


> In your example the camera would have worked correctly for 2-3 years.


 
Are you thinking the building didnt leak from the beginning?


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> Are you thinking the building didnt leak from the beginning?


I don't know if it did or not nor does it really matter in the example, but regardless there has been some 10 years use where one normally assumes a life of around 30 years for such a roof.  As noted, it is reasonable for the owners there to pay for the use they got even if it was defective.


----------



## ecwinch

Is not a considerable irony that the person what is leading the criticism of the current board is the same individual that was the Board President when all this massive damage from a leaking building was occurring?

When these incidents of "buckets in the lobby" were occurring?

Just for the record. How long was Allan Cohen on the Board and/or Board President - 6 years?

And how long ago was the Ocean Club built - 10 years ago?


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> this whole situation seems like a problem I am having with a new canon camera.  It takes blurry pictures. It is under warranty, purchased in June and has been sent back to Canon twice. Both times they claimed to have made repairs and sent it back.  The darn camera cannot take a picture that is not blurry.  Canon insists its working according to specs.  I continue to challenge a camera that does not take clear pictures.  Is it because the camera in general is a piece of crap and Canon does not want to admit to its defects or is it because they think blurry pictures (leaky windows) is okay.  Knowing that the camera is defective or finding out afterwards that the building was defective should not be put on the owner.  The company selling the product should be responsible for insuring it meets specifications (in Marriotts case, up to Marriott standards).
> 
> We bought the camera because of Canons reputation and we bought the ocean club because of Marriotts name.  Neither one are living up to their expectations and I should not have to accept a defective product.



This is an apples to oranges comparisons. Most product warranties are replace or repair warranties.

This is a roof - which like tires and other goods with a limited life-span based on usage has a pro-rated replacement warranty. Which is essentially is what MVCI is doing in this case.

And has this alleged defective building every materially affected your personal usage or enjoyment of the resort? Is that not the difference between your blurry camera and the AOC? That your Canon camera unusable, and with MVCI you want them to make you whole, even though you have enjoyed the benefits of your purchase for a number of years.


----------



## marksue

cruisin said:


> How old was the roof when it was failing? If it was good for 10 years, then maybe that's not too bad, if it was bad and causing damage after the 1st year, then waiting 10 years to fix it, does not really mean that owners got 10 years out of it? Am I missing something? I do not own in Aruba, but am sad to see this at a Marriott resort.



The roof has been defective since day 1.  The building has leaked from the windows, the doors and the roof since day 1.  The owners have had to pay for all the water damage since day 1.  WHere is Marriott's responsibility?  WHy wait 10 years to saythe roof needs to be replaced when there ahs been an issue since day 1?  Why is Marriot now saying we need to waterproof the building and have the owners pay when the issue due to lack of waterproofing has been there since day 1?

The owners have paid all the repair costs for all the damage caused by leaks, lack of waterproofing, and the bad roof since day 1.  All of this should have been repaired within the first year but never was, now the owners have to foot the majority of the bill.


----------



## timeos2

*It's been said before. There are limits and time frames for thigs to happen*



marksue said:


> The roof has been defective since day 1.  The building has leaked from the windows, the doors and the roof since day 1.  The owners have had to pay for all the water damage since day 1.  WHere is Marriott's responsibility?  WHy wait 10 years to saythe roof needs to be replaced when there ahs been an issue since day 1?  Why is Marriot now saying we need to waterproof the building and have the owners pay when the issue due to lack of waterproofing has been there since day 1?
> 
> The owners have paid all the repair costs for all the damage caused by leaks, lack of waterproofing, and the bad roof since day 1.  All of this should ahve been repaired within the first year but never was, now the owners have to foot the majority of the bill.



The owners, via the Board, had the chance to refuse accepting the building back when the original turn over occurred. Usually the time frame is 1 year after the Developer turns control to the Board. If they accepted it at that point - probably 5 years or so back now - the clock ran on the 1 year warranty, any work they requested and accepted resolved the issue as far as any court/warranty is concerned and going forward like a car or a house any additional work is theirs to handle (pay for). It is not a never ending blank check simply because someone says "it happened on day 1".  We can read here that the Board has accepted work done and changes made thus ending any ongoing liability of the Developer. That Board represented you and if you have a complaint it would be with them not Marriott. 

If Marriott has on its own decided to go back in time and pay for costs they could easily challenge and win I'd take my winnings and move on.  Going after them for more seems beyond greedy at this point.


----------



## modoaruba

Regardless of what and whom is right,let's do some number crunching.

1BR Gold is now about $18,500
MF is now $1089.40
Let's not count special assessment and keep MFs constant.And no financing.

Year 1=    $18,500+$1,089.40=$19,589.40
Year 2=                    "          =$10,339.40
Year 3=                    "          =$ 7,256.06
Year 4=                    "          =$ 5,714.40
Year 5=                    "          =$ 4,789.40
Year 6=                    "          =$ 4,172.73
Year 7=                    "          =$ 3,732.25
Year 8=                    "          =$ 3,401.90
Year 9=                    "          =$ 3,144.95
Year 10=                   "         =$  2,939.40

So effectively,going every year to the same resort(AOC) will average $3,000/Year after 10 years.At least.
Rental of same could have gotten 15 to 20 years.At least.
For those who have to finance and fees going up,add a few more years.

Even though Marriott pays a share,where is the money coming from?
Let me guess.


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> The roof has been defective since day 1.  The building has leaked from the windows, the doors and the roof since day 1.  The owners have had to pay for all the water damage since day 1.  WHere is Marriott's responsibility?  WHy wait 10 years to saythe roof needs to be replaced when there ahs been an issue since day 1?  Why is Marriot now saying we need to waterproof the building and have the owners pay when the issue due to lack of waterproofing has been there since day 1?
> 
> The owners have paid all the repair costs for all the damage caused by leaks, lack of waterproofing, and the bad roof since day 1.  All of this should have been repaired within the first year but never was, now the owners have to foot the majority of the bill.


It will be necessary to prove those accusation, simply saying it must be so isn't enough.  It will likely take the smoking gun to prove this issue.


----------



## marksue

There are plenty of eyewitness's.  Anyone who has stayed at the Ocean Club and seen all the pails in the lobby, hallways, sales offices can validate there were leaks.  

Ask those people who had to vacate thier rooms due to water entering thier room from the windows or sliding doors.  How many rooms were out of commission due to Omar becuse water entered the rooms through the windows and sliding doors.  Ask anyone about the leaks in the lobby whenever it rained because water entered through the doors.

Most anyone who owns at the Ocean Club is aware of all the issues around leakage of the building.


----------



## timeos2

*We're still getting unbelievable "proof" of so problems. Not close to enforcable.*



marksue said:


> There are plenty of eyewitness's.  Anyone who has stayed at the Ocean Club and seen all the pails in the lobby, hallways, sales offices can validate there were leaks.
> 
> Ask those people who had to vacate thier rooms due to water entering thier room from the windows or sliding doors.  How many rooms were out of commission due to Omar becuse water entered the rooms through the windows and sliding doors.  Ask anyone about the leaks in the lobby whenever it rained because water entered through the doors.
> 
> Most anyone who owns at the Ocean Club is aware of all the issues around leakage of the building.



That doesn't mean that the Board didn't legally accept the building (as they apparently did) nor does a few leaks (or even a bunch, a lot  or whatever you care to call it) mean the roof is 100% unacceptable. You are making sweeping assumptions that have virtually no chance of surviving any type of challenge in court if it came to that. You would have to have serious (read costly) engineering reports that stated it was faulty, NOT just 10 (or 20 or 100) people saying "I saw a bucket on 5/5/02 in the hallway".  It's ludicrous to think such anecdotal "evidence" would make a case. Add in factprs like a hurricane and there are other outs for the developer/contractor(s). In fact it's that type of statement that clearly paints the so called owners advocates as uninformed to how such a lawsuit would work and unprepared to actually launch any type of recovery demand.   It would truly be laughable how quickly such a claim would be dismissed as unfounded.  And a total waste of money for both sides. Owners had better hope that the Board continues to act to responsibly resolve this and not screw up what Marriott seems to be offering. That is in all likelihood far beyond anything any court would ever order them to do. It would be awfully expensive to find out if that is a true or false assumption.


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> There are plenty of eyewitness's.  Anyone who has stayed at the Ocean Club and seen all the pails in the lobby, hallways, sales offices can validate there were leaks.
> 
> Ask those people who had to vacate thier rooms due to water entering thier room from the windows or sliding doors.  How many rooms were out of commission due to Omar becuse water entered the rooms through the windows and sliding doors.  Ask anyone about the leaks in the lobby whenever it rained because water entered through the doors.
> 
> Most anyone who owns at the Ocean Club is aware of all the issues around leakage of the building.


I think you'll need to get legal testimony of such starting from the first few months of occupancy to come close to a legal proof.  It should be interesting.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> There are plenty of eyewitness's.  Anyone who has stayed at the Ocean Club and seen all the pails in the lobby, hallways, sales offices can validate there were leaks.
> 
> Ask those people who had to vacate thier rooms due to water entering thier room from the windows or sliding doors.  How many rooms were out of commission due to Omar becuse water entered the rooms through the windows and sliding doors.  Ask anyone about the leaks in the lobby whenever it rained because water entered through the doors.
> 
> Most anyone who owns at the Ocean Club is aware of all the issues around leakage of the building.



Was the Ocean Club the only resort on the island of Aruba to suffer any damage during Omar?


----------



## marksue

It was the only Marriott property to suffer damage.  The Marriott Hotel, and the Surf Club had no damage at all. The only news and posts on damage by people in aruba is on the Marriott Ocean club.


----------



## ecwinch

Are you sure there was no damage to either property?

And while I would agree that it appears the AOC suffered more damage then the other properties, how do you factor into your POV that the Surf Club is newer construction, and the hotel had just undergone a major renovation?

Construction standards for protecting against windstorm damage have increased significantly in the past 10 years; mainly driven by changes in the insurance industry brought about by the massive cycle of storm events in the past 10 years. Insurers have added more exclusions from wind-driven water damage, significantly raised premiums, and greatly increased deductibles due to their losses in coastal areas from increased storm events in Florida and the Gulf Coast. Where before it was less expensive to insure against that potential damage, the changes in the insurance industry have changed the equation. That has driven builders to build better and to provide better protection against wind-driven storm damage. 

But that is a recent trend. Construction from 10-12 years would not have the same level of protection as a building of 4-6 years old. Or one that was recently refurbished or built. Are you suggesting that MVCI should have hit owners up for a special assessment to harden the building against wind-driven water to provide a similar level of protection like they did for the hotel complex? 

And how do you account for the fact that in a storm, different building types - even ones right next door to each other - suffer different levels of damage. There are a variety of factors that influence that outcome. To simply label it as a defective building is not well-reasoned. For by that standard, a large number of buildings would be defective construction when subjected to the effects of a hurricane.


----------



## marksue

The building has had issues since day 1.  You have never been there to see what happened everytime it rained. I was as all other owners.  So you can say what you want to defend Marriott, the building has been defective and Marriott sold it knowing it was defective.  

I guess with your logic, since it was a 10 year old building it wasn't built to handle rain since the building codes were different.


----------



## Dave M

I really don't care who wins in this fight. I don't have a vested interest. However, I do have enough legal training and experience to share what I believe to be a realistic and disinterested (not uninterested) view.

I accept, Mark, that the roof leaked from day 1. It's also clear that Marriott and the BOD were at odds over who should pay for repairs or replacement of the roof. And perhaps, yes, although it has not been proven, Marriott "knew" on day 1 that the roof leaked. However, ultimately the BOD, with the authority granted by the bylaws to act on behalf of all owners, agreed to settle with Marriott on the previously discussed 40-60 basis. That's one primary reason why I believe you have virtually no chance to win in court. 

Further, because your BOD accepted the settlement, the BOD must continue to pay for legal expenses - which means the owners pay for those expenses - to protect itself against the likely claims against the BOD when Marriott points the finger in court that it already has an agreement on the roof to which the BOD has agreed. 

That's why I believe the only thing you are accomplishing with this fight is more expense for the owners.


----------



## modoaruba

As an owner,it seems that there is no way to win.
Either it's legal fees or increased assessments and MFs.
I wanted for the group to get the word out to the owners more out of educating the owners as to what is going on rather than incur onto them (us) more fees.
As I crunched the numbers before,IMO,it makes no sense to buy in now through Marriott.Maybe a resale is OK.
But most of all this whole fiasco serves as a lesson to any novice or even weathered TS owner regardless of resort.
"S" can happen anywhere,just be prepared to deal with it.
No different than going to the casino,realize what you can afford to loose before you put money down.Again,IMO.
I hate to sound down on this but to me there is also an upside.
We will continue to go to the AOC,we will pay the fees,and we WILL enjoy our stay in spite of it all.
We made many friends there whom we see year after year.We at times bring family with us.The memories-Priceless.(should be a commercial-eh?)

Happy New Year


----------



## lovearuba

*minor disagreement*



Dave M said:


> I really don't care who wins in this fight. I don't have a vested interest. However, I do have enough legal training and experience to share what I believe to be a realistic and disinterested (not uninterested) view.
> 
> I accept, Mark, that the roof leaked from day 1. It's also clear that Marriott and the BOD were at odds over who should pay for repairs or replacement of the roof. And perhaps, yes, although it has not been proven, Marriott "knew" on day 1 that the roof leaked. However, ultimately the BOD, with the authority granted by the bylaws to act on behalf of all owners, agreed to settle with Marriott on the previously discussed 40-60 basis. That's one primary reason why I believe you have virtually no chance to win in court.
> 
> Further, because your BOD accepted the settlement, the BOD must continue to pay for legal expenses - which means the owners pay for those expenses - to protect itself against the likely claims against the BOD when Marriott points the finger in court that it already has an agreement on the roof to which the BOD has agreed.
> 
> That's why I believe the only thing you are accomplishing with this fight is more expense for the owners.


 
I don't agree with you that the only thing that is being accomplished is more expenses to the owners.  The group continues to grow significantly in numbers and as more people sign up, the chance of removing the current BOD will be a reality.  Its also my opinion that Marriott would not have agreed to pay anything if it was not for the group.  www.aocconcernedowners.com


----------



## ecwinch

If a building was defective for 10 years, and it took 7 or 8 years for the owner to make a claim for defective construction, how successful do you think that owner would be in pursuing that claim?  Particularly if the building was defective from day 1 and the defects were as obvious as claimed. 

Against that backdrop, perhaps the current settlement that board accepted is a suitable compromise. And might be better than than the potential net outcome of a lawsuit. While I know that Dutch law is involved here, in the US, the decision of the board would be protected by the "business judgment rule" doctrine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule

To circumvent that defense it would have to be proven that MVCI controlled the board to the extent the directors were incapable of making independent decisions. Which would only lead to a protracted legal battle.

If I owned at AOC I would be concerned about the impact of potential litigation on the MVCI relationship. Something I am sure the board considered when making the decision to accept the current settlement regarding the roof. While Mark has made previous statements that he feels that MVCI would never drop the AOC, I do not think that is well-reasoned. In any relationship - no matter how important - their clearly is a point of no return. 

Now, I do not think that is a immediate possibility. But if crusaders were allowed unfettered access to the owners to spin their biased version of the situation without rebuttal, then it is not impossible that they could gain a majority on the board. In the face of a board that is adversarial and seeks to pursue litigation, it is not a forgone conclusion that MVCI would rethink the value of the AOC.

That is the danger involved here, and why I remain involved in this thread. TUG should not be used as a bully pulpit to present only one side of a story in order to influence owners. While I agree that AOC owners have some legitimate concerns, the tactics and history of the crusaders provide me with no confidence that they would work with MVCI to solve those problems. I think their road only leads to one conclusion.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> I don't agree with you that the only thing that is being accomplished is more expenses to the owners.  The group continues to grow significantly in numbers and as more people sign up, the chance of removing the current BOD will be a reality.  Its also my opinion that Marriott would not have agreed to pay anything if it was not for the group.  www.aocconcernedowners.com



I do not think that is consistent with the record here.

Thanks


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> The building has had issues since day 1.  You have never been there to see what happened everytime it rained. I was as all other owners.  So you can say what you want to defend Marriott, the building has been defective and Marriott sold it knowing it was defective.
> 
> I guess with your logic, since it was a 10 year old building it wasn't built to handle rain since the building codes were different.



Mark,

Just to have a clear account of the facts, I was at the Surf Club in Dec 08, right after Omar. I visited the Ocean Club on a number of occasions during my visit, including periods when it was raining. I did not notice any buckets in the lobby.

I am not saying that this never occurred. Just that my opinion is rooted in more than just the biased information related here. My position is based on an objective view of the facts presented here and by MVCI, my personal observations of the property, the discussions here, and conversation and correspondence with Allan Cohen. It is not rooted in a desire to be argumentative, but in sense that it would be inappropriate for the dialog to dominated by only one side of the story. Given your frequent posts and hyperbole, I think the dialog requires more balance.

Thanks


----------



## lovearuba

ecwinch said:


> I do not think that is consistent with the record here.
> 
> Thanks


 
Most of the owners do not post here.  Your records that you refer to are from the folks that post to this thread and the majority, overwhelming majority of the posts on this thread are not from owners.

You always want people to prove their evidence when they make statements but you do not seem to have the same criteria for your posts. You've walked through the ocean club and on the rare occasions that you've been there you did not see water issues.  The folks that have are owners and actually stayed there many times.


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> The building has had issues since day 1.  You have never been there to see what happened everytime it rained. I was as all other owners.  So you can say what you want to defend Marriott, the building has been defective and Marriott sold it knowing it was defective.
> 
> I guess with your logic, since it was a 10 year old building it wasn't built to handle rain since the building codes were different.


It may have had issues from day 1, I really don't know and it isn't especially important to me personally.  However, it will take proving that it had issues from day 1 or thereabouts AND that Marriott knew up front and sold it anyway or at least that they should have known.  Saying it here over and over will have NO meaning at all and I don't automatically buy it.  Plus there was still 10 years worth of use gotten out of the room.  I get that part of the argument was that there was additional cost and damage BECAUSE of the alleged roof issues.  Assuming one can legally prove all of those things, which I sincerely doubt to be honest, the neutral position is the current cost times the % of roof life lost and then add in the additional proven costs generated by a defective roof.  Assuming a 30 year life span which I suspect is the longest courts might use, you're looking at getting Marriott up to about 2/3 but the resort and owners will still have to pay the extra legal costs and the opposition owners will still have to pay their costs as well, or else add those to the resort legal costs if they can secure a ruling that pays the plaintiff's costs.  

Some want to take the stance that if you're not with us your against us but I don't think that is an appropriate view on this topic..  You've got those that believe and those of us that are skeptical.  That is not defending Marriott and suggesting it is insults the intelligence of those that remain unconvinced.  Being unconvicced or taking a wait an see approach IS NOT being a Marriott apologist.  



modoaruba said:


> As an owner,it seems that there is no way to win.
> Either it's legal fees or increased assessments and MFs.


A point several of us made over time.  The owners are the one's who will suffer no matter the outcome of this and the lawyers are the ones who will profit.  And it is entirely possible that the new position will be a loss for the owners.  Anyone who thinks the board is going to be thrown out and a BOD that the opposition would be happy with is being unrealistic at best.



lovearuba said:


> I don't agree with you that the only thing that is being accomplished is more expenses to the owners.


It was my understanding that Marriott agreed to it's roughly 40% kick in very early on, from what I've seen the group can't take credit for this.  But it goes along with my prediction that there will be a settlement that at it's best is about a break even for the owners there even if the % is higher from Marriott (consider legal fees) and the group will attempt to take credit there as well.


----------



## qlaval

ecwinch said:


> ....I was at the Surf Club in Dec 08, right after Omar.
> I visited the Ocean Club on a number of occasions during my visit, including periods when it was raining.
> I did not notice any buckets in the lobby.
> 
> I am not saying that this never occurred.
> Just that my opinion is rooted in more than just the biased information related here...



Strangely it was hard to miss....


----------



## Luckybee

qlaval

Nice photo(and comment  )...indicitive of what we have seen over the years in different forms as well ! I remember in the first few years having to avoid areas of the lobby after it rained because of the water and buckets. Do any of the other owners remember the staircase that crumbled and couldnt be used for months?

Dean
 Im curious....if you dont believe that Allan was responsible for Marriott kicking in to the point that they did for the repairs than who do you think got them to do it? Or are you now seperating Allan from the "group" ? 
 As well where we most definitely have to agree to disagree is the one issue(which happens to be the one I am mainly concerned with and again just my opinion but the most important issue for the future)which is that I think that there is a relatively decent chance of success is getting a more owner responsive board after all is said and done. To say that that isnt realistic is simply wrong, but as I said that is just my opinion and we obviously both have different ones


----------



## davidberg

*Nice Photo*

I like the photo and remember the Board even sending that specific one as well as a couple others depicting some of the damage that occurred at Ocean Club during Hurricane Omar. I believe I may even have other pictures showing the devastation on the island after that storm.


----------



## Luckybee

davidberg said:


> I like the photo and remember the Board even sending that specific one as well as a couple others depicting some of the damage that occurred at Ocean Club during Hurricane Omar. I believe I may even have other pictures showing the devastation on the island after that storm.



Very true and good point....when Allan was still on the board he made sure the owners were kept in the loop !


----------



## Dean

Luckybee said:


> Dean
> Im curious....if you dont believe that Allan was responsible for Marriott kicking in to the point that they did for the repairs than who do you think got them to do it? Or are you now seperating Allan from the "group" ?
> As well where we most definitely have to agree to disagree is the one issue(which happens to be the one I am mainly concerned with and again just my opinion but the most important issue for the future)which is that I think that there is a relatively decent chance of success is getting a more owner responsive board after all is said and done. To say that that isnt realistic is simply wrong, but as I said that is just my opinion and we obviously both have different ones


Allan may or may not have been responsible, I don't know, but Marriott made the offer before there was any group and when Allan was still on the BOD if I understand the chain of events correctly.  I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that Allan was the group and vice versa did you.  Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree on the chances of you getting what you think you want as it pertains to the BOD, at least with Marriott still involved with the resort.  I expect you're going to get a more distant, battle hardened BOD and a Marriott that's less willing to be warm and fuzzy toward the owners there.  Just my opinion of course as no one knows for certain and it'll take years to even know somewhat.  IMO, the course being taken is one of high risk with low reward potential.

I think it'll be difficult using damage during a hurricane as proof of the accusations, I think you'll need similar damage proof that is not hurricane related to be effective.


----------



## timeos2

*Somethimes things aren't as bad as they may appear*



davidberg said:


> I like the photo and remember the Board even sending that specific one as well as a couple others depicting some of the damage that occurred at Ocean Club during Hurricane Omar. I believe I may even have other pictures showing the devastation on the island after that storm.



When a hurricane is involved it is very easy to come up with a "disaster" photo that may not be representative of any basic flaw or even serious damage.  Here is one from a resort that basically suffered no damage at all 
yet, in this picture, it looks pretty bad. 






A wider view puts it more in context:






Actually just some wind blown rain under the second floor doors that caused this section of ceiling to get saturated and fall.  A hurricane can drive water into many places, sealed or not, you normally wouldn't find it. Hardly proof of a major defect. 

Interestingly there was virtually no damage to the resort due to roof problems. Yet shortly after the storm an engineering review found them incorrectly installed and in need of total replacement.  It was proven that they were faulty from day one. The owners got ZERO toward the cost as both the contractor, who had been sued on another job and went out of business after that and the developer, who had gone bankrupt, paid nothing.  They should have, it was known they were responsible but the law said "too bad" - they were untouchable even after a lawsuit.  

So as I've said before, be thankful you are getting reimbursed for even a portion of the work. Even when you are proven right it doesn't mean you'll actually see a penny.  Take whats offered and run to the bank.  It's doubtful that a costly fight will get you anymore in the long run and you very well may end up with less.


----------



## Luckybee

Dean said:


> Allan may or may not have been responsible, I don't know, but Marriott made the offer before there was any group and when Allan was still on the BOD if I understand the chain of events correctly.  I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that Allan was the group and vice versa did you.  Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree on the chances of you getting what you think you want as it pertains to the BOD, at least with Marriott still involved with the resort.  I expect you're going to get a more distant, battle hardened BOD and a Marriott that's less willing to be warm and fuzzy toward the owners there.  Just my opinion of course as no one knows for certain and it'll take years to even know somewhat.  IMO, the course being taken is one of high risk with low reward potential.
> 
> I think it'll be difficult using damage during a hurricane as proof of the accusations, I think you'll need similar damage proof that is not hurricane related to be effective.



Again...we'll have to wait and see what happens because it will take quite some time in my humble opinion and on that we do agree. 

Just as an fyi...there is plenty of evidence out there about the "usual' leaking...I dont think that will be a high threshold to meet. Whether its effective at this point will be the issue in court I suspect ...but before everyone keeps saying the photo after a hurricane isnt evidence keep in mind why qlaval posted it and what it was in response to. I think it was rather appropriate (and funny imho).


----------



## Luckybee

timeos2 said:


> So as I've said before, be thankful you are getting reimbursed for even a portion of the work. Even when you are proven right it doesn't mean you'll actually see a penny.  Take whats offered and run to the bank.  It's doubtful that a costly fight will get you anymore in the long run and you very well may end up with less.



Im sure that many owners would not agree with me on this but I would happily pay more if it meant we could get rid of this board and get back the kind of board we had for years ! I am not thankful that we have a Marriott controlled board one little bit because I have 0 confidence that the same sordid things that repeatedly have happened and continue to happen wont happen once again when it is in Marriott's interest to do so. As an example(and there are many) I personally continue to be concerned with regard to the issue of beach sharing. When I was in Aruba a number of people were talking about this issue and spoke with Corey about it, ...all answers from him were prefaced with "currently", and "not now", and related use of language. I know of no OC owner that wants "sharing" with the SC, but Marriott certainly does and this board has already repeatedly shown its true colours when it comes to Marriott. I also am very concerned about the way this board wants to prevent info from reaching the owners...and on and on and on! You see for me, the steps the board has taken ie: not telling the owners in the material why the addresses were being requested, tells me that this is not the kind of board that I want representing my interest...this is exactly the reason I got interested in this effort in the first place...quite frankly for me it was never about the $.
  So for me I personally, and I have said this before could not care one iota if Marriott pays one more dime(although I am happy that as a result of Allans efforts in the first place they did accept some responsibilty and pay what they did).....I just want to see this board ousted so that we can go back to a board and resort we can trust.


----------



## SueDonJ

Luckybee said:


> Im sure that many owners would not agree with me on this but I would happily pay more if it meant we could get rid of this board and get back the kind of board we had for years ! ... I just want to see this board ousted so that we can go back to a board and resort we can trust.



Ousting members of this board is proving to be a costly and drawn-out legal process for all of the MAOC owners, isn't it?  And even if the "concerned owners" group is successful with that, there is no guarantee that the members who are elected to replace them will be able to act as prior board members did.  There simply aren't any contractual stipulations in place which will give owners the right to demand "transparency" (whatever that means) from any BOD members.  Of course you could attempt further legal actions that would enact such stipulations, by way of amendments to the bylaws and changes in the management contract between the MAOC BOD and MVCI, but again there is no guarantee of success there and the legal costs would only continue to escalate.  Plus, how much are you willing to risk the MVCI name on the door for an intangible "transparency?"

I know you, Luckybee, in particular, think that this is an issue that relates only to MAOC owners.  But in fact MVCI acts as the management company for every resort under the MVCI umbrella, and streamlines the process as much as is possible.  You may not think that what happens at other MVCI resorts has any bearing on your resort, but the truth is that you can see evidence all over this TUG Marriott board that MVCI has instituted the practice at most every resort of using generic email addresses which funnel owner concerns through the GM offices.  The private contact information for BOD members is being phased out all over.  Unless your group can prove that is a breach of contract, there is a slim-to-none chance that MVCI will reverse that decision for any resort it manages.  In fact I would bet that MVCI would fight against it specifically at MAOC because of a former board member's actions instigating this situation.

But besides all that, I cannot figure out why the sitting board members at MAOC are taking the brunt of this "concerned owners" group's anger.  You all say that the physical structure was defective for years, that you saw it with your own eyes.  So why punish the board members that have finally taken actions to fix it?!?!  Especially when they have been able to extract from MVCI more than what would be reasonably levied in a court judgment - in effect, MVCI is funding what would have been the warranty protection if the contractor hadn't gone bankrupt.  It just doesn't make any sense to me - the boards that accepted the building as it was and the boards that weren't fiscally responsible were good boards, but the board that took actions to fix the problems is bad?  I just don't get it.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Im curious....if you dont believe that Allan was responsible for Marriott kicking in to the point that they did for the repairs than who do you think got them to do it? *Or are you now seperating Allan from the "group" ? *



This is funny. When I spoke with Allan, he disavowed any cooperation and/or knowledge of the "group". He repeatedly made that point. He actually mentioned that it was a source of friction between him and MVCI, as he had no knowledge or influence over what Mark was doing.

Likewise, if you go back to the beginning of this thread, Mark disavows any affiliation with Allan.

Your post seems to suggest the opposite.


----------



## ecwinch

qlaval said:


> Strangely it was hard to miss....



Actually this is a better example of how the facts are being distorted to fit the argument.

As I clearly noted in my post, I was there in Dec 2008. The properties for this JPEG file show it was taken on Oct. 22, 2008 at 10:27am. 

Just validates my broader point on how the actual facts are being "slanted" to fit the argument. And completely ignores my point was the roof leakage is being grossly over-generalized, not that it never occurred.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> Im sure that many owners would not agree with me on this but I would happily pay more if it meant we could get rid of this board and get back the kind of board we had for years ! I am not thankful that we have a Marriott controlled board one little bit because I have 0 confidence that the same sordid things that repeatedly have happened and continue to happen wont happen once again when it is in Marriott's interest to do so. As an example(and there are many) I personally continue to be concerned with regard to the issue of beach sharing. When I was in Aruba a number of people were talking about this issue and spoke with Corey about it, ...all answers from him were prefaced with "currently", and "not now", and related use of language. I know of no OC owner that wants "sharing" with the SC, but Marriott certainly does and this board has already repeatedly shown its true colours when it comes to Marriott. I also am very concerned about the way this board wants to prevent info from reaching the owners...and on and on and on! You see for me, the steps the board has taken ie: not telling the owners in the material why the addresses were being requested, tells me that this is not the kind of board that I want representing my interest...this is exactly the reason I got interested in this effort in the first place...quite frankly for me it was never about the $.
> So for me I personally, and I have said this before could not care one iota if Marriott pays one more dime(although I am happy that as a result of Allans efforts in the first place they did accept some responsibilty and pay what they did).....I just want to see this board ousted so that we can go back to a board and resort we can trust.



This is one part that I do not understand. Beyond Allan, what other pro-owner director(s) were replaced that resulted in this seemingly sudden shift to a "Marriott controlled board"? 

From your description it makes it sound like there were three pro-owner directors. But accounts here have strictly centered on Allan's departure from the board. Who was voting with Allan when the board was not MVCI controlled and how were they replaced?


----------



## m61376

Luckybee said:


> As an example(and there are many) I personally continue to be concerned with regard to the issue of beach sharing. When I was in Aruba a number of people were talking about this issue and spoke with Corey about it, ...all answers from him were prefaced with "currently", and "not now", and related use of language. I know of no OC owner that wants "sharing" with the SC, but Marriott certainly does and this board has already repeatedly shown its true colours when it comes to Marriott.



That my be the case, but since the legal documents give Marriott the right to change these things as they deem necessary, I doubt the GM at any of the resorts would make a blanket statement that any policy which may be reviewed over the course of time is a concrete absolute.

The reality here is that there has been a tug of war between OC and SC owners over the use of the beach and the pool facilities. While the majority (or maybe all, but since I haven't spoken to all I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to speak for them) of OC owners may not want to share the beach facilities, many (and perhaps most, although- again- I don't know) would like access to the SC's pool facilities, which many visitors prefer. 

For a long time the OC and SC shared pool usage, but the influx of visitors was largely one-sided towards utilization of the SC's pool. Many SC owners resented OC guests using the pool and requested that, if the SC pool was open to OC guests, then the less crowded OC beach should be likewise shared. In reality, palapas stand vacant at the OC, since there are more palapas per keyed room than at the SC, and SC owners felt that if they allowed OC owners/guests to use their better pool facilities then the beach should be shared as well. 

Since OC owners preferred to keep the beach facilities separate, the BODs of the two facilities determined the only equitable solution was to keep everything separate. 

Personally, as an owner at the SC, while I think it would be nice if everyone co-existed and shared and I think that so doing would provide an ideal vacation experience, because it would allow visitors to use whatever facilities they would enjoy more (quieter pool but without some of the amenities versus busier pool area but with the Lazy River, etc.), since owners could not agree to share nicely the only equitable solution was for each resort to remain territorial. Although I know OC owners were angry about it, one-sided sharing was not an equitable solution.

But enough of the history - the point is, attitudes evolve over time and it makes sense to leave the door open for changes to be made.


----------



## Dean

Luckybee said:


> Im sure that many owners would not agree with me on this but I would happily pay more if it meant we could get rid of this board and get back the kind of board we had for years ! I am not thankful that we have a Marriott controlled board one little bit because I have 0 confidence that the same sordid things that repeatedly have happened and continue to happen wont happen once again when it is in Marriott's interest to do so. As an example(and there are many) I personally continue to be concerned with regard to the issue of beach sharing. When I was in Aruba a number of people were talking about this issue and spoke with Corey about it, ...all answers from him were prefaced with "currently", and "not now", and related use of language. I know of no OC owner that wants "sharing" with the SC, but Marriott certainly does and this board has already repeatedly shown its true colours when it comes to Marriott. I also am very concerned about the way this board wants to prevent info from reaching the owners...and on and on and on! You see for me, the steps the board has taken ie: not telling the owners in the material why the addresses were being requested, tells me that this is not the kind of board that I want representing my interest...this is exactly the reason I got interested in this effort in the first place...quite frankly for me it was never about the $.
> So for me I personally, and I have said this before could not care one iota if Marriott pays one more dime(although I am happy that as a result of Allans efforts in the first place they did accept some responsibilty and pay what they did).....I just want to see this board ousted so that we can go back to a board and resort we can trust.


As long as Marriott is involved they will always have a significant amount of control over the board including who is elected.  Also, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, there's no way to know if you've gotten what you want unless you get on of the "instigators" elected.  Marriott would walk away before they would give up a certain level of control, they may anyway.


----------



## Dean

m61376 said:


> That my be the case, but since the legal documents give Marriott the right to change these things as they deem necessary, I doubt the GM at any of the resorts would make a blanket statement that any policy which may be reviewed over the course of time is a concrete absolute.
> 
> The reality here is that there has been a tug of war between OC and SC owners over the use of the beach and the pool facilities. While the majority (or maybe all, but since I haven't spoken to all I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to speak for them) of OC owners may not want to share the beach facilities, many (and perhaps most, although- again- I don't know) would like access to the SC's pool facilities, which many visitors prefer.
> 
> For a long time the OC and SC shared pool usage, but the influx of visitors was largely one-sided towards utilization of the SC's pool. Many SC owners resented OC guests using the pool and requested that, if the SC pool was open to OC guests, then the less crowded OC beach should be likewise shared. In reality, palapas stand vacant at the OC, since there are more palapas per keyed room than at the SC, and SC owners felt that if they allowed OC owners/guests to use their better pool facilities then the beach should be shared as well.
> 
> Since OC owners preferred to keep the beach facilities separate, the BODs of the two facilities determined the only equitable solution was to keep everything separate.
> 
> Personally, as an owner at the SC, while I think it would be nice if everyone co-existed and shared and I think that so doing would provide an ideal vacation experience, because it would allow visitors to use whatever facilities they would enjoy more (quieter pool but without some of the amenities versus busier pool area but with the Lazy River, etc.), since owners could not agree to share nicely the only equitable solution was for each resort to remain territorial. Although I know OC owners were angry about it, one-sided sharing was not an equitable solution.
> 
> But enough of the history - the point is, attitudes evolve over time and it makes sense to leave the door open for changes to be made.


The beach itself is public so you have to take out the area that's public out of the equation.  Anytime amenities are too one-sided, things are not going to turn out well when sharing, enter the lazy river.  Add to that the chair savers, who I have even less respect for, and you have a disaster in the making.  I wonder how they're handling SC owners staying at the OC since most Marriott resorts offer day use privileges to owners at that resort.


----------



## Luckybee

m61376 said:


> That my be the case, but since the legal documents give Marriott the right to change these things as they deem necessary, I doubt the GM at any of the resorts would make a blanket statement that any policy which may be reviewed over the course of time is a concrete absolute.
> 
> The reality here is that there has been a tug of war between OC and SC owners over the use of the beach and the pool facilities. While the majority (or maybe all, but since I haven't spoken to all I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to speak for them) of OC owners may not want to share the beach facilities, many (and perhaps most, although- again- I don't know) would like access to the SC's pool facilities, which many visitors prefer.
> 
> For a long time the OC and SC shared pool usage, but the influx of visitors was largely one-sided towards utilization of the SC's pool. Many SC owners resented OC guests using the pool and requested that, if the SC pool was open to OC guests, then the less crowded OC beach should be likewise shared. In reality, palapas stand vacant at the OC, since there are more palapas per keyed room than at the SC, and SC owners felt that if they allowed OC owners/guests to use their better pool facilities then the beach should be shared as well.
> 
> Since OC owners preferred to keep the beach facilities separate, the BODs of the two facilities determined the only equitable solution was to keep everything separate.
> 
> Personally, as an owner at the SC, while I think it would be nice if everyone co-existed and shared and I think that so doing would provide an ideal vacation experience, because it would allow visitors to use whatever facilities they would enjoy more (quieter pool but without some of the amenities versus busier pool area but with the Lazy River, etc.), since owners could not agree to share nicely the only equitable solution was for each resort to remain territorial. Although I know OC owners were angry about it, one-sided sharing was not an equitable solution.
> 
> But enough of the history - the point is, attitudes evolve over time and it makes sense to leave the door open for changes to be made.



Interesting perspective...having owned from the very beginning we know quite a few owners at the OC. Some availed themselves of the lazy river when it first opened but mainly as a novelty...we tried it a couple of times but the novelty wore off. . But the trade off simply wasnt worth it. Our beach was so overcrowded that it was like being at the SC or as we equated it ...las vegas on a very bad day. Quite frankly during that time frame was the only time we traded because we couldnt stand going to the OC with those crowds on the beach. Now that the new rules are in place we've gone back to a much less crowded beach and it is so much more pleasant. I seriously dont know of 1 OC owner who would give up the beach in order to gain access to the SC pool but I do know quite a few who would absolutely revolt if we went back to that again...but I guess that could just be that we know different owners !  Actually imho if the board tried to pass that again I think that would be a sure fire guarantee of success for the "concerned owners" because there would be alot more jumping on board...lol.


----------



## Luckybee

Dean said:


> The beach itself is public so you have to take out the area that's public out of the equation.  Anytime amenities are too one-sided, things are not going to turn out well when sharing, enter the lazy river.  Add to that the chair savers, who I have even less respect for, and you have a disaster in the making.  I wonder how they're handling SC owners staying at the OC since most Marriott resorts offer day use privileges to owners at that resort.




The public beach is exactly the area we are talking about. SC owners are not allowed under the new rules to use the OC chairs or palapas and visa versa. So by that action the SC owners no longer overcrowd the OC beach. In exchange the OC owners no longer use the SC pool. Of course an SC owner could come over and lay in the sand ....This was well monitored by security repeatedly when we were there in Nov/Dec a month ago....we saw quite a number of "blue towel" holders being requested to vacate by security. Of course if you had friends at the OC you could simply use your friends towels but it certainly did dramatically cut down on the overcrowding.


----------



## qlaval

ecwinch said:


> Actually this is a better example of how the facts are being distorted to fit the argument.
> 
> As I clearly noted in my post, I was there in Dec 2008. The properties for this JPEG file show it was taken on Oct. 22, 2008 at 10:27am. .....



We all know that these are from Omar... it is just that when buckets are there they are hard to miss...



davidberg said:


> I like the photo and remember the Board even sending that specific one as well as a couple others depicting some of the damage that occurred at Ocean Club *during Hurricane Omar*.....


----------



## Dean

Luckybee said:


> The public beach is exactly the area we are talking about. SC owners are not allowed under the new rules to use the OC chairs or palapas and visa versa. So by that action the SC owners no longer overcrowd the OC beach. In exchange the OC owners no longer use the SC pool. Of course an SC owner could come over and lay in the sand ....This was well monitored by security repeatedly when we were there in Nov/Dec a month ago....we saw quite a number of "blue towel" holders being requested to vacate by security. Of course if you had friends at the OC you could simply use your friends towels but it certainly did dramatically cut down on the overcrowding.


We'll have to draw a distinction between use of the beach and use of the equipment.  The beaches in Aruba are public though I'm not clear on the technical answer of where the beach begins.  For the public beach, all they could enforce would be use of the equipment and they should enforce that IMO for both groups.  They could lay in the sand or they could bring their own equipment, chairs, etc.


----------



## Luckybee

Dean said:


> We'll have to draw a distinction between use of the beach and use of the equipment.  The beaches in Aruba are public though I'm not clear on the technical answer of where the beach begins.  For the public beach, all they could enforce would be use of the equipment and they should enforce that IMO for both groups.  They could lay in the sand or they could bring their own equipment, chairs, etc.



You are absolutely correct ...equipment is all they can enforce on the public beach(which as I understand it is the majority of the beach). Bottom line though is that it does have the desired effect of keeping the OC beach much less crowded(since Aruba is a fly in destination not too many would bring there own chairs/umbrellas....and even if they decided to buy there with the strong breeze they'd have a hard time finding heavy enough chairs to be able to effectively use them...as I said before you could lay in the sand but that is pretty darn infrequent in Aruba) .
 I would strongly doubt that they need to enforce it(other than for the pool) the other way around since I cant imagine why anyone at the OC would want to use the SC beach unless of course they're visiting friends/family in which case as I said before the easy solution to that is not to use your own color respective towels.


----------



## marksue

Luckybee said:


> I would strongly doubt that they need to enforce it(other than for the pool) the other way around since I cant imagine why anyone at the OC would want to use the SC beach unless of course they're visiting friends/family in which case as I said before the easy solution to that is not to use your own color respective towels.



They are enforcing if you have friends staying at another the other resort.  When we shared a hut with friends from the the SC, security told me to go to the towel hut and get additional OC towels.  When I stayed at the huts on the SC side my friends got us SC towels.


----------



## marksue

timeos2 said:


> So as I've said before, be thankful you are getting reimbursed for even a portion of the work. Even when you are proven right it doesn't mean you'll actually see a penny.  Take whats offered and run to the bank.  It's doubtful that a costly fight will get you anymore in the long run and you very well may end up with less.



Marriott did not paid anything in repairing the 200k worth of damage to the resort.  It all came out of the owners pockets.



			
				ecwinch said:
			
		

> Actually this is a better example of how the facts are being distorted to fit the argument.
> 
> As I clearly noted in my post, I was there in Dec 2008. The properties for this JPEG file show it was taken on Oct. 22, 2008 at 10:27am.
> 
> Just validates my broader point on how the actual facts are being "slanted" to fit the argument. And completely ignores my point was the roof leakage is being grossly over-generalized, not that it never occurred.


.

How are the facts slanted,  you state you saw no damage after going to the resort early Dec.  Yet these photos are actual photos at the time the storm occured.  Looks to me like the facts are right in front and the slant was you saying there was no damage seeing it 2 weeks later.


----------



## timeos2

*The never ending guarantee?*



marksue said:


> Marriott did not paid anything in repairing the 200k worth of damage to the resort.  It all came out of the owners pockets.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> How are the facts slanted,  you state you saw no damage after going to the resort early Dec.  Yet these photos are actual photos at the time the storm occured.  Looks to me like the facts are right in front and the slant was you saying there was no damage seeing it 2 weeks later.



200K isn't even the likely amount of any insurance deductible for most medium to large timeshare projects.  Are the owners going to go back and look for every $100 expenditure and expect a rebate?  That most certainly falls in the category of out of pocket expenses. 

As already pointed out a photo of damage can look far worse than it really is. And when dealing with extraordinary weather such as hurricanes all bets are off.  No one can predict or guarantee no damage will occur when dealing with such forces of nature.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> How are the facts slanted,  *you state you saw no damage* after going to the resort early Dec.  Yet these photos are actual photos at the time the storm occured.  Looks to me like the facts are right in front and the slant was you * saying there was no damage seeing it 2 weeks later*.



Here is my post:

"Just to have a clear account of the facts, I was at the Surf Club in Dec 08, right after Omar. I visited the Ocean Club on a number of occasions during my visit, including periods when it was raining. *I did not notice any buckets in the lobby.*"

Of course to distort the truth and further your personal agenda, you want to replace the word "buckets" with "damage" to give my statement an entirely different meaning.  

This is not surprising. As evidenced by this thread, you perform a similar "restatement" of virtually every communication from the AOC BoD to a similar outcome.


----------



## lovearuba

*buckets*



ecwinch said:


> Here is my post:
> 
> "Just to have a clear account of the facts, I was at the Surf Club in Dec 08, right after Omar. I visited the Ocean Club on a number of occasions during my visit, including periods when it was raining. *I did not notice any buckets in the lobby.*"
> 
> Of course to distort the truth and further your personal agenda, you want to replace the word "buckets" with "damage" to give my statement an entirely different meaning.
> 
> This is not surprising. As evidenced by this thread, you perform a similar "restatement" of virtually every communication from the AOC BoD to a similar outcome.


 
The buckets I saw were in the hallways so you would have to walk through the area where the rooms are which is not something you could see from the lobby.  I personally didnt see issues with the lobby other than the fact that the water was coming through the doors that led outside.  It was not the same occassion that I saw buckets in the hallways.  I only go once a year so can tell you I've experienced it twice on two separate trips.


----------



## modoaruba

*suggestion*

Since the majority of owners have never met nor know anything about the BOD,and we vote for these representatives to do the right thing on our behalf,how about a video of the meetings to be accessable to us owners.
Either on our MVCI site or whatever.
Unfortunately only a few have the privilage of being present at these meetings.We rely on very few opinions as to what happened at those meetings.
How's that for transparancy?Would Marriott be open to this idea?
I for one would love to see what goes on and what my rep is doing for me.
There has been a lot of discussion as to the rules that the BOD has all these powers since we voted for them and we should abide by their suggestions.
If we don't like what we see,the next election would be easier to qualify a more educated vote.
I guarantee that this will not happen.

I dare an owner to tape the meetings and put it on youtube.
Sends shivers down my spine already.


----------



## ecwinch

Have you made this suggestion to the board? If not, I would encourage you do to do so. Given the size of the AOC membership, it might not be cost effective, but you never know until you try.

I can only tell that you that WorldMark does webcast their annual meeting and archives it to their website. But WM has 260k members.

And if you guys at the AOC think you have a developer controlled board, with WorldMark, four of the five board members are current or former employees. It is one reason that these spurious claims regarding the AOC board do not reasonate with me.


----------



## lovearuba

*interesting idea*



ecwinch said:


> Have you made this suggestion to the board? If not, I would encourage you do to do so. Given the size of the AOC membership, it might not be cost effective, but you never know until you try.
> 
> I can only tell that you that WorldMark does webcast their annual meeting and archives it to their website. But WM has 260k members.
> 
> And if you guys at the AOC think you have a developer controlled board, with WorldMark, four of the five board members are current or former employees. It is one reason that these spurious claims regarding the AOC board do not reasonate with me.


 
I think its worth a shot.


----------



## marksue

Looks like Marriott or the board, not sure who is paying, is wasting money again by hiring a Parliamentarian for the meeting on Saturday.  It’s bad enough they are holding this special meeting on Saturday so few owners can show up, since it is the major transition day.  Now more money being spent on this person. Until the last meeting this person was never there and the president ran the meeting. Why is the board so afraid, to let the few owners who can be there, speak about their property and their concerns.


----------



## SueDonJ

It's not wasted money at all if it serves the purpose of protecting the agenda of the Special Meeting.

This is just one more instance of Marriott putting your group on notice that it will utilize any and every bylaw and management contract protection for itself when defending its actions related to MAOC.  It makes perfect business sense considering that they've been threatened by your group in the past with legal action.

Does your attorney have a problem, I mean does s/he see an illegality, with a Parliamentarian being present at Saturday's meeting?


----------



## timeos2

*Better safe than sorry*



marksue said:


> Looks like Marriott or the board, not sure who is paying, is wasting money again by hiring a Parliamentarian for the meeting on Saturday.  It’s bad enough they are holding this special meeting on Saturday so few owners can show up, since it is the major transition day.  Now more money being spent on this person. Until the last meeting this person was never there and the president ran the meeting. Why is the board so afraid, to let the few owners who can be there, speak about their property and their concerns.



Very common practice when the threat of lawsuits are thrown around. It is for everyomes protection that the rules are followed to a "t" and if it costs a few dollars so be it. Better than holding a special meeting that ends up being meaningless because of parliamentary process errors. The cost of that would be far more than whatever this represents.


----------



## modoaruba

YOUTUBE THE MEETING:whoopie: 

END THE SPECULATION


----------



## timeos2

*They have a limit*



modoaruba said:


> YOUTUBE THE MEETING:whoopie:
> 
> END THE SPECULATION



Unless the meeting lasts for 8 minutes or less you can't post it to YouTube


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> YOUTUBE THE MEETING:whoopie:
> 
> END THE SPECULATION



I'm not sure I understand how this relates to Mark's post.  His problem seems to be that the Parliamentarian will prevent any owners who are present at the meeting from speaking about any issues that are unrelated to the stated agenda (this, from the notice posted at my-vacationclub.com.)  At least I think that's what his problem is, going by his reaction to the last meeting where a Parliamentarian was present.

Whether the meeting can be taped or not wouldn't have any impact on what topics are allowed to be brought up by either Marriott or any owner(s).


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> I'm not sure I understand how this relates to Mark's post.  His problem seems to be that the Parliamentarian will prevent any owners who are present at the meeting from speaking about any issues that are unrelated to the stated agenda (this, from the notice posted at my-vacationclub.com.)  At least I think that's what his problem is, going by his reaction to the last meeting where a Parliamentarian was present.
> 
> Whether the meeting can be taped or not wouldn't have any impact on what topics are allowed to be brought up by either Marriott or any owner(s).



This relates to anyone's post about the meetings.
All we hear are other's interpretations as to what happened.Or what will happen.Or what can happen.
If we all can bare witness to what is being said,how it's being said,etc.
we then can have a better discussion amongst ourselves based on actual facts.
A lot of what is being said here is speculative at best.
Regardless of what Mark thinks or anyone else thinks,being present at the meeting will lay to rest the speculations.EH?


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> This relates to anyone's post about the meetings.
> All we hear are other's interpretations as to what happened.Or what will happen.Or what can happen.
> If we all can bare witness to what is being said,how it's being said,etc.
> we then can have a better discussion amongst ourselves based on actual facts.
> A lot of what is being said here is speculative at best.
> Regardless of what Mark thinks or anyone else thinks,being present at the meeting will lay to rest the speculations.EH?



I think taping meetings, as a general rule, is a pretty good idea actually.  Have you looked closely at the ownership documents to determine if there is a legal impediment to doing so, and, if not, who would assume the costs for it?  On the other hand, also as a general rule, Minutes of a Meeting have served as legal recordings of meetings for hundreds of years.  It isn't necessary to tape-record a meeting in order to know the details of why a certain outcome happens at a certain meeting.  It's possible that taping doesn't happen routinely even in this electronic age because no party wants to assume the costs for what is ultimately unnecessary.

But with respect to this particular upcoming meeting on Saturday, especially, the cost of taping and sharing the info would be a total waste, IMO.  There is ONE thing on the the agenda, the vote for the bylaw amendment to include postal and email addresses of the owners in the Association's Shareholder Register.  Owners were mailed info packets that included proxy forms and instructions so that absent owners' votes will be counted along with those of any owners who are present.  Why do you need to see a tape of a vote count when the numbers will be included in Minutes and the count can be validated by written proxies and the Inspector's tally?

Unless of course you're looking for some reason to cry "FOUL!" when an owner who is present tries to introduce another topic during the meeting and the Parliamentarian denies it, which would be evidence of Marriott wrongdoing somehow?  That's what happened with the last meeting that was overseen by a Parliamentarian, I know, but with this one there shouldn't be any confusion at all over what topics can be introduced because the info packet mailed to every owner included this:



> (bolding theirs) *Note:  In accordance with Section 5.4 of the Bylaws, business transacted at this Special Meeting of Members shall be confined to the objects stated in the official Notice of Special Meeting.*


----------



## modoaruba

Minutes of meetings do not show the spirit nor demeanors of those present which sometimes shows more than what is actually said as can be seen by being present.IMO.


----------



## SueDonJ

Sometimes I want "just the facts, ma'am", Modo, don't want things to be cluttered with emotions and moods and inferences.  Legal actions would be one of those sometimes.

Once more you and I are different in our approaches - doesn't make one of us wrong and the other right, just different.  Interesting.


----------



## modoaruba

A picture speaks a hundred  or a thousand,I don't remember,words.


----------



## SueDonJ

True, but in this case I'd only be needing two or three.

"It passed."  "It didn't pass."  All the rest would be background noise.


----------



## modoaruba

I see your point of view.
But being an owner,I WOULD like to see the emotions of those who are representing me.
Sometimes I am a good judge of character.If I don't like what I SEE,I don't vote them in again.
To ME,it's more than just a yes or nay vote.A monkey can do that.
I also look for character.


----------



## SueDonJ

But aren't you representing yourself in this one meeting, Modo?  I'm assuming you filled out your proxy statement and included your yes or no vote to be counted?  I wouldn't expect that anybody but the Parliamentarian and the Inspector will have an active role in this meeting, and even their actions/words will be extremely limited to their assigned jobs.  It's been made pretty clear that this isn't designed to be, and will not be allowed to devolve into, a give-and-take meeting by any stretch of the imagination.

Point taken, though, that it could be helpful for you (any owner, really) to be able to review a tape recording of an informational meeting in which your BOD members and/or Marriott personnel are active participants.


----------



## modoaruba

Point taken, though, that it could be helpful for you (any owner, really) to be able to review a tape recording of an informational meeting in which your BOD members and/or Marriott personnel are active participants.[/QUOTE]

Thank you.My point taken by you is appreciated.


----------



## SueDonJ

Sure, you're welcome, but it's a point I conceded as a general rule way up there in post #2443.  I still wonder why/how you think taping tomorrow's specific meeting would be helpful, considering that its sole purpose is a legal action (yes or no monkey votes, as you said) and no deviation from the agenda will be allowed.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Sure, you're welcome, but it's a point I conceded as a general rule way up there in post #2443.  I still wonder why/how you think taping tomorrow's specific meeting would be helpful, considering that its sole purpose is a legal action (yes or no monkey votes, as you said) and no deviation from the agenda will be allowed.



I would like not only tomorrow's meeting taped but all of future meetings taped.
Tomorrow is a good start as any.
I just find it helpful being an observer as to what goes on with my investment in the hands of those in charge.
You can look at it as to my entertainment if need be to avoid an argument.


----------



## lovearuba

*transparency you say*



modoaruba said:


> I would like not only tomorrow's meeting taped but all of future meetings taped.
> Tomorrow is a good start as any.
> I just find it helpful being an observer as to what goes on with my investment in the hands of those in charge.
> You can look at it as to my entertainment if need be to avoid an argument.


 
Some folks think we shouldnt expect transparency, board transactions should be private and the voting process should be suspect. IN any event, I of course agree there should be transparency and starting with taping the meetings would go a long way. 

Not to get too far off topic, I was speaking to someone at work today who mentioned that Aruba beaches are currently experiencing signficant waves, almost enough to surf in. Does anyone know if this is true?


----------



## modoaruba

lovearuba said:


> Some folks think we shouldnt expect transparency, board transactions should be private and the voting process should be suspect. IN any event, I of course agree there should be transparency and starting with taping the meetings would go a long way.
> 
> Not to get too far off topic, I was speaking to someone at work today who mentioned that Aruba beaches are currently experiencing signficant waves, almost enough to surf in. Does anyone know if this is true?



I heard that Venezuela got an earthquake today.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> I would like not only tomorrow's meeting taped but all of future meetings taped.
> Tomorrow is a good start as any.
> I just find it helpful being an observer as to what goes on with my investment in the hands of those in charge.
> You can look at it as to my entertainment if need be to avoid an argument.


While I see the point and don't disagree in some aspects, there are some issues of business that may be handled at a BOD meeting that you don't necessarily want widely available.  For the yearly general meeting it is likely OK but I would not think it appropriate for general BOD meetings to tape them just like it isn't appropriate to have the minutes distributed to be used by outside forces.  



marksue said:


> Looks like Marriott or the board, not sure who is paying, is wasting money again by hiring a Parliamentarian for the meeting on Saturday.  It’s bad enough they are holding this special meeting on Saturday so few owners can show up, since it is the major transition day.  Now more money being spent on this person. Until the last meeting this person was never there and the president ran the meeting. Why is the board so afraid, to let the few owners who can be there, speak about their property and their concerns.


As noted this is normal procedure required because Marriott and the BOD have been put in this situation.  You have to lay the blame and cost at the feet of those that forced it, that would be you I believe.  It was a predictable expense as are many other extra costs that someone will have to pay and if you think Marriott is going to ante up on their own with free extra money, think again.  ASAMOF, don't be surprised if there is an additional new Special Assessment because of the proceedings.


----------



## lovearuba

*right*



Dean said:


> While I see the point and don't disagree in some aspects, there are some issues of business that may be handled at a BOD meeting that you don't necessarily want widely available. For the yearly general meeting it is likely OK but I would not think it appropriate for general BOD meetings to tape them just like it isn't appropriate to have the minutes distributed to be used by outside forces.
> 
> As noted this is normal procedure required because Marriott and the BOD have been put in this situation. You have to lay the blame and cost at the feet of those that forced it, that would be you I believe. It was a predictable expense as are many other extra costs that someone will have to pay and if you think Marriott is going to ante up on their own with free extra money, think again. ASAMOF, don't be surprised if there is an additional new Special Assessment because of the proceedings.


 
so the next special assessment will be dedicated to Mark


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> so the next special assessment will be dedicated to Mark


You said it.


----------



## modoaruba

Dean said:


> While I see the point and don't disagree in some aspects, there are some issues of business that may be handled at a BOD meeting that you don't necessarily want widely available.  For the yearly general meeting it is likely OK but I would not think it appropriate for general BOD meetings to tape them just like it isn't appropriate to have the minutes distributed to be used by outside forces.
> 
> As noted this is normal procedure required because Marriott and the BOD have been put in this situation.  You have to lay the blame and cost at the feet of those that forced it, that would be you I believe.  It was a predictable expense as are many other extra costs that someone will have to pay and if you think Marriott is going to ante up on their own with free extra money, think again.  ASAMOF, don't be surprised if there is an additional new Special Assessment because of the proceedings.



I don't agree with closed door meetings.I don't think that there are double secret agendas that no one should know about.We are not that important in the scheme of things.If transparancy via taped meetings were available maybe a lot of speculations can be laid to rest as I stated before.It might also keep our representatives in check knowing we are watching and listening.

You also speculate as to who is going to pay what.You might be right but why make such a statement as fact?

That is one reason I would like taping the meetings.No one can make statements other than what transpired.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> I don't agree with closed door meetings.I don't think that there are double secret agendas that no one should know about.We are not that important in the scheme of things.If transparancy via taped meetings were available maybe a lot of speculations can be laid to rest as I stated before.It might also keep our representatives in check knowing we are watching and listening.
> 
> You also speculate as to who is going to pay what.You might be right but why make such a statement as fact?
> 
> That is one reason I would like taping the meetings.No one can make statements other than what transpired.


Would you agree there is sometime company information that would hurt the resort and/or company if it were known by competitors or potential contractors?  I'd bet that the BOD oath actually pertains to such information.  My statements on payment are pretty broad and clearly posted as prediction and expectation.  I do not believe they are not specific enough for the issue of fact or opinion to be applicable but if it's helpful, consider it my opinion.


----------



## modoaruba

Dean said:


> Would you agree there is sometime company information that would hurt the resort and/or company if it were known by competitors or potential contractors?  I'd bet that the BOD oath actually pertains to such information.  My statements on payment are pretty broad and clearly posted as prediction and expectation.  I do not believe they are not specific enough for the issue of fact or opinion to be applicable but if it's helpful, consider it my opinion.



Aren't the meetings open to the owners who happen to be there?If so what is to prevent a stooge from attending to gather this secret information.Anyone walking through the resort can come up with a name of an owner if attendence is taken.I don't know if they "proof" the attendees.

As far as fact or opinion,you can see for yourself that many posts address issues as if by factual language without any knowledge of the fact since they were not privi to such information.IMO


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> Aren't the meetings open to the owners who happen to be there?If so what is to prevent a stooge from attending to gather this secret information.Anyone walking through the resort can come up with a name of an owner if attendence is taken.I don't know if they "proof" the attendees.
> 
> As far as fact or opinion,you can see for yourself that many posts address issues as if by factual language without any knowledge of the fact since they were not privi to such information.IMO


I doubt all BOD meetings are open or if they are, that the actual work is done in those meetings but I don't know for certain how they are set up.  I'll defer to others on that.  However, I'll stick to my idea that there are items that it would be best for others not to know for the protection of the resort and company.

When I see a post on such a forum, I assume what someone says is their opinion, unless they specifically quote items or state as fact, please feel free to treat my post the same in every case so consider this a blanket statement that means either IMO or in my understanding where applicable.  While I may use IMO at times for emphasis, I believe most people read things knowing that a statement by any joe blow is their opinion or interpretation, it may also happen to be fact.  For example on several threads fairly recently the "INTENT" of certain publications and actions was posted on this thread.  That is clearly opinion though in those cases they likely believe their statements  of Marriott intent, are fact.  Funny people only use this ploy when questioning someone saying something they don't like, it's usually an attempt to discredit the messenger rather than dealing the issues.  Given I'm a bystander to a degree without a dog in this particular fight, I have no vested interest in the specifics of this case though I do believe there are implications for all Marriott owners and all Aruba owners.


----------



## modoaruba

Respectively,point taken.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> Respectively,point taken.


LOL, Beer's on me when we can get together.  Last year was my first visit to Aruba though I've owned in Aruba in one way or another for almost 15 years.  We stayed at La Cabana and the Surf Club.  Recently got an exchange back to Aruba for Jan, 2011 also at the SC (OS again,not GV) and that's the ONLY resort we listed as we did not list the Ocean Club in that search.  Why one may ask, simple, Wife said so because it's lazy river or nothing for her for that trip LOL.


----------



## qlaval

timeos2 said:


> Unless the meeting lasts for 8 minutes or less you can't post it to YouTube



Easy to overcome  

Meeting part. 1
Meeting part. 2
Meeting part. 3
etc....


----------



## tlwmkw

Haven't chimed in here in a while but I do see a new element to the discussion where I can give some advice.  Regarding taping/videoing the meetings that is entirely appropriate and I think that the board would do that without any problem.  If there is any "confidential" information then the board goes into "Executive session" which means that all minutes (if there even are any) are sealed and not discoverable in the case of a lawsuit or anyone else trying to get that information.  At that point the room is cleared of all but board members and all recording devices are turned off.  This is standard procedure with any board (I've been on a couple) and is not an attempt to " hide" anything but rather it protects sensitive or potentially litigious information.  The official minutes would read "The board now went into Executive session" and there would be no information as to what was discussed.  The concerned owners will probably still say this is a lack of transparency but this is standard practice for all types of boards and is simply to protect the company/timeshare/homeowners, or whatever type of board it is.  You should try to see if the meeting can be taped.  You may be surprised and find they are willing to do that without any argument.  The only problem will be if they have specific rules against it but I have never heard of a board that had such a rule.  If you plan to do this then you'll need to act soon so that it can be arranged.  From my experience you'll probably find that the tape will be quite boring to watch and I doubt you will get much out of it.

Another thing that anyone attending the meeting should know is that at an official board meeting only board members are allowed to speak.  Occasionally there is a topic about which they want opinions from the constituents and they then either survey prior to the meeting or allot a period of time at the meeting for comments- each speaker only gets their given time and then they have to stop speaking.  This can all be read about in Roberts rules of order (which deals with how meetings should be run)- the parliamentarian will be at the meeting to ensure that these standardized rules are properly followed.

tlwmkw.


----------



## modoaruba

Dean said:


> LOL, Beer's on me when we can get together.  Last year was my first visit to Aruba though I've owned in Aruba in one way or another for almost 15 years.  We stayed at La Cabana and the Surf Club.  Recently got an exchange back to Aruba for Jan, 2011 also at the SC (OS again,not GV) and that's the ONLY resort we listed as we did not list the Ocean Club in that search.  Why one may ask, simple, Wife said so because it's lazy river or nothing for her for that trip LOL.



Love to have a beer with you.
We stayed at the SC last September for the first time.We exchanged a 1BR OC for a 2BR SC so we could bring family.
Was a great time of year,very quiet and uncrowded.The lazy river was delightful.
Interesting to note that after 15 years of ownership you've only been there once.If you're like us,it'll grow on you.Nothing not to like.


----------



## ecwinch

I do think tlwmkw covered the procedural issues in his post, which is spot on. As noted, most states recognize that for certain topics (i.e. personnel, legal, etc), the use of executive session is appropriate. 

From my read of the special meeting notice, it seems that the meeting has been called - either directly or in response to - by the concerned owners group. 

And a special meeting process - by it's very nature - is supposed to be specifically limited to the business outlined in the special meeting notice. So why the complaint on the use of proper procedure to ensure the agenda is properly adhered to?


----------



## marksue

*Tried to video*

So owners tried to video tape the open meeting, but Frank Knox would not let them.  He made a statement that he works for a bank and could not be photographed. Also said something about potential kidnapping.  Give me a break Frank.  Resign and get off the board if you do not want to be held accountable.  Frank, Jamie Dimon is on camera all the time.  Why are you so special?

Also in the meeting Marriott made a statement that the owners have a way to correspond to each other and that is through TUG.  Im sure TUG likes that.  I do not know why Marriott does not want he owners to communicate.  They have to be afraid.  So , Marriott you are reading this, answer the question why are you afraid of the owners communicating with each other.


----------



## marksue

*owner observation of AOC Special Meeting*

My observations are Marriott has a puppet board and they, Marriott do not want any dissension.  I don't know what their agenda is but a free flow of information is not one of them.  The board does not have the guts or smarts to hold a meeting as evidenced by them hiring a parliamentarian who really ran the meeting.  She was the rudest person I have met in a long time  and immediately set the tone of  protecting the  board and Marriott and screw you owners in the audience.  No one liked her that I talked to and the whole meeting was a railroad job.  Sooner or later, our Concerned Owners membership is going to grow, and there will be a day of reckoning, and I would hope the board would nominate someone from our group to provide another side of the issues.  The most disturbing thing to me was the alleged refusal of Aruba Today to run an  ad recognizing our organization because Marriott allegedly threatened to refuse Aruba Today from being distributed on any of their properties.


----------



## marksue

*Letter to Me Marriott William Shaw and Arnie Sorenson*

I just returned from Aruba and want to report to you, probably the most egregious tactic of your MVCI division in their attempt to silence owner debate.  The Concerned Owners group had placed the ad noted below in the Aruba Today Newspaper to allow owners an opportunity to keep informed and share communications.  

I went to the newspaper on Friday and was told that the Editor wanted to speak to me.  She then informed my that the ad which had been running for several weeks had to be stopped because she had gotten a call from MVCI which stated that if they continued to run the ad that Marriott would not allow the distribution of Aruba Today on their properties in Aruba.  

I can understand the newspapers position, Marriott is a very important client on this small island.  I just want to express my continued disbelief in the tactics and motives of your MVCI division.  This latest effort along with MVCI retaining for the second time a world renown Parliamentarian to run an owner meeting has only increased the mistrust of the Marriott name with owners asking:  What are they afraid of ?  

I am confident that you are unaware of this latest action and I still am hopeful, but somewhat dismayed that I have not received an acknowledgement to my letter dated December 4, 2009 to resolve these concerns.  

Regards,


Below is the ad to run in Aruba Today.

*ATTENTION

Marriott Aruba Ocean Club Owners

Join over 1,000 fellow week owners & register at

aocconcernedowners.com 

 created by owners to

Keep informed & learn the facts*


----------



## marksue

*letter to parliamentarian*

As one of the world renown Parliamentarian experts you state on your web site noted above - you assist organizations, improving effectiveness and building strong teams.  Unfortunately, what I witnessed at Saturdays special meeting of the Marriott Aruba Ocean club was far from that.   I would appreciate if you could inform the owners (who I understand you were hired as a neutral party) on how we can appeal a decision of the Board and or the Parliamentarians ruling if we see an error.

At yesterday's meeting several of the points noted by the Board/MVCI and or their legal representatives were just not factual.  How can an owner dispute this and find out the truth?  W#e should have an opportunity to prove this.  Do we have to wait for the annual meeting or can something be done now?

In the future, as the ruling authority - everyone in the room should be informed about the process.  As you note on your card - there is an appeal process.  What is that and should owners have been informed about this at the meeting.  

Also, at the May annual meeting questionable procedures occurred.   Below is the election letter and questions that I mentioned to you at the meeting.  As parliamentarian, I question whether some procedural errors have been made as noted by this election judge.   


*FROM THE MAY MEETING*


 As an election judge at the Annual Meeting held on May 15, 2009, I noticed that your draft minutes and the letter from Dirk to Owners regarding Marriott’s justification for voting and the exact vote count for the election for Board members seem to be misleading and request further clarification and correction. 



…  Other examples of MVCI exercising its voting rights at Aruba Ocean Club include the 2003 Annual Meeting.  While MVCI has not always exercised its voting rights at Aruba Ocean Club or its other timeshare resorts, it reserves the right to do so in its discretion. ..”


This statement is misleading because Marriott has never used their votes for an Owners Board candidate since the Board became an Owners Board.  To clarify, the 2003 election noted by Dirk, was an election by a developers controlled Board. 


This was the only time Marriott votes were cast for an Owner candidate and was again when developer candidates controlled the Board.  These two situations differ significantly. You and other MVCI executives have openly expressed your approval of having a hands off approach related to Board Owner elections.   I am not questioning Marriott’s right to vote their shares; I am questioning what I feel is an attempt to mislead the Owners regarding your history and tactics.   


I would greatly appreciate you providing Owners and myself with a better understanding of the Board election results as reported in your correspondence and on the web site by addressing the following questions:   


1.  If you are correct that fewer than 7000 votes were cast prior to the meeting, why were not the Owner election judges aware of this during the meeting?  Assuming that the election judges (including myself) counted the votes and certified them why were these numbers not shared or reported during the meeting? 


You can check with your Parliamentarian that according to Robert’s rules the election results were announced as certified at the meeting by Inspector of Election, Scott Derrickson, who gave the Tellers Report. These figures as noted below are different than those you are stating now.  Allowing additional votes and proxies after the meeting announcement raises the question of an invalid election.  


2.  Since each Owner had up to 2 votes per week to cast for up to 2 A members – is it possible that you doubled counted some of the votes?  These ballot numbers were not reported to or certified by the Owner election judges at the meeting and only reported after the meeting by the Marriott team.  


3. Mr. Cohen had Limited proxies for 980 shares in the A-Member election and 1,070 shares in the B-Member election at the meeting.   Under what column were these tallied?


Votes                             Votes          
by                                   During    
Limited                          Meeting      
Proxy Received            Received 



It seems almost statistically impossible that Frank Knox received the exact same amount under both columns?   Any rational person would think this is suspect.   Is the number 2,112 correct for both?  Are the election ballots available for audit and review by Owners?  If this is not possible because the ballots have been destroyed, please inform us. 



5. Please inform us as to who hired Morrow & Company, the Parliamentarian and if they were paid for by the Association, if so how much did they cost the Owners?  Since the Parliamentarian was not used at the Surf club annual meeting just weeks after the AOC’s, or any other of your 50+ Vacation Clubs do you have plans to retain them for next year’s AOC annual meeting. 


6. Would you please explain each of these numbers and how they are obtained?


 “The majority of the voting interest present, which is the number needed to take action at this meeting, is 3,724, The total voting interests for this meeting are 23,954 and the majority of the total voting interests are 11,978.  If you take the total units times 51 wks times 2 plus 1500 this = 23,736 not 23954”



7. You state that Mr. Knox had the majority support of Owners prior to the Meeting and imply that your votes only supported the Owners, if this is the case why did you not support Mr. Andrew Bury who according to your report had the second highest vote from Owners going into the Annual Meeting?  Remember all nominated candidates were chosen by Marriott and the Board.  



8. Did anyone other than Marriott verify that at the time of the election MVCI had title and paid Owners in full for the Ownership of 115 units?  



I am requesting a formal written response to these questions and look forward to hearing from you.  I think a clear understanding will be helpful for all Owners in the future.  Thank you,


----------



## Dean

I didn't think they'd allow taping.  A Parliamentarian's job is simply to run a meeting, not perform accounting functions.  If I were MVCI, I would not let a magazine be distributed with an add negative to MVCI.  I think the issues you list were predictable and how most companies would handle such situations.  


> Sooner or later, our Concerned Owners membership is going to grow, and there will be a day of reckoning


Unless you can do so legally, I doubt that's the case.  IMO you have one chance at this going forward and that's in the courts ASAP but with all the documentation of your concerns and accusations that you can muster.  Also, IMO, must of the opportunity was lost on the front side.


----------



## modoaruba

Mark,
You set yourself up for the self rightous of why MVCI is always right and you are always wrong.
Can't wait for the Marriott defenders to do their shtick.

This is exactly why I called for a taping of the meeting.
That way there would be no interpretation of the meeting other than what and how it took place.
The BS reason it could not be taped should show how deceptive this whole process is.
Now we have to rely on your and other attendees reports.
MVCI had given us no choice but to rely on those reports.

Closed door and censored meetings are going to bring about a larger recruitment to the goup of CONCERNED owners.

Now WE ARE REALLY CONCERNED!


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> My observations are Marriott has a puppet board and they, Marriott do not want any dissension.  *I don't know what their agenda is but a free flow of information is not one of them. * The board does not have the guts or smarts to hold a meeting as evidenced by them hiring a parliamentarian who really ran the meeting.  She was the rudest person I have met in a long time  and immediately set the tone of  protecting the  board and Marriott and screw you owners in the audience.  No one liked her that I talked to and the whole meeting was a railroad job. ...



What I bolded above, that's where you lose all credibility.  Honestly.  How can you possibly say that you "don't know what their agenda is" when it was clearly spelled out in the notice of the Special Meeting that was sent to every owner as well as available for viewing at the Aruba Ocean Club's page at my-vacationclub.com?  It's mind-boggling to me that any owner would have gone into that meeting with an expectation of a "free flow of information."  That wasn't the purpose of the meeting and you were certainly forewarned that it would not be allowed.

Mark, what are your attorney's thoughts about the meeting?  Did you discuss with her/him the Notice that all of the owners were sent and your expectations prior to the Special Meeting, to give her/him an opportunity to explain to you exactly what would be reasonable to expect?  tlwmkw obviously has some knowledge about standard meeting rules that are in this post, and I would think that if your attorney is competent, s/he would have at least the same basic understanding.  It's apparent from your reaction that you lack any of that understanding, especially considering that there was a lesson to be learned from the first meeting at which a Parliamentarian was present.  Once more, this appears to be proof that you're not proceeding with a competent attorney's oversight.

So, can we assume from all this that the majority of votes cast were not in favor of the bylaw amendment?


----------



## cruisin

Another classic case of developer vs owners. Developers only care about $$ not owners. The less owners know, the stronger position the developer has, that will always be the case. Free flow of information would be great, but it is not going to happen, ever. When owners get a strong hand, Marriott will cut and run, the resort will lose the marriott name and some of its luster, and the rest will be scared to follow. It would be quite interesting to see one Aruba property lose its branding and compare the 2 over the following years? I for one have never figured out if slow death by developer is better or worse than quick death by revolt. The outlook for this resort sure seems grim either way?


----------



## timeos2

*If you start to tape things you have to do it forever and completely.*



Dean said:


> I didn't think they'd allow taping.  A Parliamentarian's job is simply to run a meeting, not perform accounting functions.  If I were MVCI, I would not let a magazine be distributed with an add negative to MVCI.  I think the issues you list were predictable and how most companies would handle such situations.
> Unless you can do so legally, I doubt that's the case.  IMO you have one chance at this going forward and that's in the courts ASAP but with all the documentation of your concerns and accusations that you can muster.  Also, IMO, must of the opportunity was lost on the front side.



We have been advised by our attorneys, numerous times, that taping (audio or video) meetings is opening a potential legal mess. Once you allow it you can be required to do it, in full, for ever meeting and risk lawsuits if it isn't doen, gets lost, isn't easily viewed/heard, etc etc. Another possible nightmare most Boards/Associations wouldn't want to expose themselves to. We live in an extremely litigious society and avoiding possible suits is nearly as important as simply conducting proper business in legal fashion. It's a shame but thats the way it is.  This very thread has examples of why on both the owners and corporate sides.


----------



## lovearuba

*You wont get this...*



marksue said:


> As one of the world renown Parliamentarian experts you state on your web site noted above - you assist organizations, improving effectiveness and building strong teams. Unfortunately, what I witnessed at Saturdays special meeting of the Marriott Aruba Ocean club was far from that. I would appreciate if you could inform the owners (who I understand you were hired as a neutral party) on how we can appeal a decision of the Board and or the Parliamentarians ruling if we see an error.
> 
> At yesterday's meeting several of the points noted by the Board/MVCI and or their legal representatives were just not factual. How can an owner dispute this and find out the truth? W#e should have an opportunity to prove this. Do we have to wait for the annual meeting or can something be done now?
> 
> In the future, as the ruling authority - everyone in the room should be informed about the process. As you note on your card - there is an appeal process. What is that and should owners have been informed about this at the meeting.
> 
> Also, at the May annual meeting questionable procedures occurred. Below is the election letter and questions that I mentioned to you at the meeting. As parliamentarian, I question whether some procedural errors have been made as noted by this election judge.
> 
> 
> *FROM THE MAY MEETING*
> 
> 
> As an election judge at the Annual Meeting held on May 15, 2009, I noticed that your draft minutes and the letter from Dirk to Owners regarding Marriott’s justification for voting and the exact vote count for the election for Board members seem to be misleading and request further clarification and correction.
> 
> 
> 
> … Other examples of MVCI exercising its voting rights at Aruba Ocean Club include the 2003 Annual Meeting. While MVCI has not always exercised its voting rights at Aruba Ocean Club or its other timeshare resorts, it reserves the right to do so in its discretion. ..”
> 
> 
> This statement is misleading because Marriott has never used their votes for an Owners Board candidate since the Board became an Owners Board. To clarify, the 2003 election noted by Dirk, was an election by a developers controlled Board.
> 
> 
> This was the only time Marriott votes were cast for an Owner candidate and was again when developer candidates controlled the Board. These two situations differ significantly. You and other MVCI executives have openly expressed your approval of having a hands off approach related to Board Owner elections. I am not questioning Marriott’s right to vote their shares; I am questioning what I feel is an attempt to mislead the Owners regarding your history and tactics.
> 
> 
> I would greatly appreciate you providing Owners and myself with a better understanding of the Board election results as reported in your correspondence and on the web site by addressing the following questions:
> 
> 
> 1. If you are correct that fewer than 7000 votes were cast prior to the meeting, why were not the Owner election judges aware of this during the meeting? Assuming that the election judges (including myself) counted the votes and certified them why were these numbers not shared or reported during the meeting?
> 
> 
> You can check with your Parliamentarian that according to Robert’s rules the election results were announced as certified at the meeting by Inspector of Election, Scott Derrickson, who gave the Tellers Report. These figures as noted below are different than those you are stating now. Allowing additional votes and proxies after the meeting announcement raises the question of an invalid election.
> 
> 
> 2. Since each Owner had up to 2 votes per week to cast for up to 2 A members – is it possible that you doubled counted some of the votes? These ballot numbers were not reported to or certified by the Owner election judges at the meeting and only reported after the meeting by the Marriott team.
> 
> 
> 3. Mr. Cohen had Limited proxies for 980 shares in the A-Member election and 1,070 shares in the B-Member election at the meeting. Under what column were these tallied?
> 
> 
> Votes Votes
> by During
> Limited Meeting
> Proxy Received Received
> 
> 
> 
> It seems almost statistically impossible that Frank Knox received the exact same amount under both columns? Any rational person would think this is suspect. Is the number 2,112 correct for both? Are the election ballots available for audit and review by Owners? If this is not possible because the ballots have been destroyed, please inform us.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Please inform us as to who hired Morrow & Company, the Parliamentarian and if they were paid for by the Association, if so how much did they cost the Owners? Since the Parliamentarian was not used at the Surf club annual meeting just weeks after the AOC’s, or any other of your 50+ Vacation Clubs do you have plans to retain them for next year’s AOC annual meeting.
> 
> 
> 6. Would you please explain each of these numbers and how they are obtained?
> 
> 
> “The majority of the voting interest present, which is the number needed to take action at this meeting, is 3,724, The total voting interests for this meeting are 23,954 and the majority of the total voting interests are 11,978. If you take the total units times 51 wks times 2 plus 1500 this = 23,736 not 23954”
> 
> 
> 
> 7. You state that Mr. Knox had the majority support of Owners prior to the Meeting and imply that your votes only supported the Owners, if this is the case why did you not support Mr. Andrew Bury who according to your report had the second highest vote from Owners going into the Annual Meeting? Remember all nominated candidates were chosen by Marriott and the Board.
> 
> 
> 
> 8. Did anyone other than Marriott verify that at the time of the election MVCI had title and paid Owners in full for the Ownership of 115 units?
> 
> 
> 
> I am requesting a formal written response to these questions and look forward to hearing from you. I think a clear understanding will be helpful for all Owners in the future. Thank you,


 
We all want explanations but we won't get them.  There was a letter posted to our website from an election judge that was displeased with the process, Marriott never addressed it.  What kind of company goes to the newspaper and threatens them because of an ad by another party?  Who can defend that one?:ignore:


----------



## m61376

lovearuba said:


> What kind of company goes to the newspaper and threatens them because of an ad by another party?  Who can defend that one?:ignore:


Magazines, newspapers, etc. are supported by their advertisers. Frequently ads for only one brand are seen because they've made a deal to exclude competitor's ads. Threatening to pull their ads or not distribute their magazine is likely more commonplace than realized and is not reflective of any hidden agenda; it is likely more of a common business practice than you realize.

cruisin- due to its physical location, I doubt Marriott is about to abandon this property any time soon. I think the risk of them getting fed up would be far greater if it wasn't sandwiched between other prime real estate there (the Stellaris Hotel and the Surf Club). With them in the beginning stages of a Ritz on the other side of the hotel, they are intent on continuing their monopoly on that end of Palm Beach.


----------



## tlwmkw

Marksue,

When I mentioned taping/videoing the meeting I meant having a video transcript done (by that I mean professionally done by a non-biased reporting service) which many boards do allow.  This can be quite expensive but if your group offered to pay for it then the board there might allow it.  Timeos2 is correct that once this is begun it has to be done consistently and there has to be approval of the video by those in attendance (just like minutes)- though you can sign off on it without actually watching the whole thing again- however it can be done as a one off in certain circumstances with permission of all involved.  If you wanted to do this it would have taken some organization ahead of time and not just at the last minute.  I did not mean just asking if you can use your personal video camera to tape the meeting- that would not be allowed.

As far as Frank Knox's excuse for not taping it does sound a little fishy but there could be some truth to it.  When I was in college there was a girl from a famous/wealthy family in the same dorm and she had constant security and no one was allowed to reveal her class schedules or travel plans to others.  That was an unusual exception though and I can't really imagine that Mr. Knox is in that same situation bacause if he were then I doubt he would be staying at a timeshare in Aruba which doesn't appear to have great security.  He probably just came up with a lame excuse to prevent taping.  A better answer would be "That isn't allowed for x,y,z reason" and not the rather lame kidnapping excuse.

This situation is just going from bad to worse- I don't see how anyone is ever going to be happy with any resolution.

tlwmkw


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> We all want explanations but we won't get them.



No, you won't, not unless your questions are asked according to the processes and procedures that are set forth in the ownership documents, and/or comply with the rules established by the legal systems from which you're trying to get relief.  Throughout this 15-month-plus ordeal, it appears that many of the "concerned owners" have consistently ignored these requirements until Marriott et al has forced you to acknowledge them.  Be proactive for a change!  Hire and work with a competent attorney to figure out exactly what you can and cannot expect for relief, and exactly how you can go about getting it.  Then leave all the "Marriott is a terrible company and isn't treating us very nicely" fluff behind and focus your energies on getting what is rightfully yours.  Don't expect anything more and you won't be needlessly frustrated.  More importantly, you won't be engaging in useless actions that give you no relief, but do require your BOD and management company to mount a legal defense that is costing every MAOC owner.

[edited to add:]  That's an important point to acknowledge, I think, that the actions of this minority ownership group are costing every MAOC owner additional fees (which is a statement of fact because Marriott et al confirmed it in a written communication to all owners, and their statement has not been successfully challenged nor does it appear that it can be based on the opinions of timeshare-savvy owners here.)  You say that you "*all* want explanations" but you're speaking only for the "concerned owners," aren't you?  It's apparent that for some owners the myriad explanations given by Marriott et al are sufficient, or at least that those owners are not driven as you are by a perceived lack of explanations from Marriott.  Is the "concerned owners" group also concerned with the additional costs they've foisted on all MAOC owners? 



lovearuba said:


> There was a letter posted to our website from an election judge that was displeased with the process, Marriott never addressed it.



Presumably the documents as well as established law dictate the rules for votes to be tallied and certified, and also the procedures which an election judge must follow to contest a result.  If those rules and procedures are not followed, Marriott et al is not required to respond to any inquiries about the voting results.  It's for certain that posting a letter to your website would not satisfy such rules or requirements, but I'm thinking that was not the election judge's only notice of contest (at least I hope it wasn't.)  Did his/her formal notice of contest satisfy the rules and requirements?



lovearuba said:


> What kind of company goes to the newspaper and threatens them because of an ad by another party?  Who can defend that one?:ignore:



It's simple - it doesn't need a defense if it's not an illegal action.  If the newspaper allowed the ad to be removed, which it has the right to do as a private business, your problem is with the editor.  Prove to the editor that your business is as important as Marriott's and your ad will be allowed.


----------



## griffer331

Marksue,

As an owner at the Ocean Club I am interested in hearing how the voting went.  Do you have the final tally?  From your posts it sounds like you were at the meeting.  How many owners were present?

Also how do the remodeled rooms look?  The pictures look awesome on the Ocean Club website.

Thanks.


----------



## tlwmkw

Marksue,

How did the vote go?  What exactly did the proposal read?  I haven't been following this thread quite as closely and I'm afraid I'm a little behind on this.

On another note I do wonder how you think Marriott is able to exert such influence over the current board members?  Surely Allan Cohen can give us some information about this since he was on the board for so long.  I honestly don't understand how you can say they are puppets- unless MVCI has some special, secret ability to control minds I don't see how they can possibly know who will be favorable to them prior to the election.  This is a serious question even if it sounds flippant.

thanks,  tlwmkw


----------



## Kelly&Sean

I am also wondering how the vote went since that was the purpose of the meeting.  It should be simple, either our information will be released to people that request it or it will not be released.  Does anyone know the answer to the only item in question at the meeting?


----------



## SueDonJ

This is the information that was mailed to the owners and is also available on MAOC's page at my-vacationclub.com.  This is the exact wording of the proposal:



> *1.    Proposed Amendment to Bylaws*
> 
> The proposed Bylaw Amendment, if adopted, would provide for the addition of individual Members' home postal mailing address and electronic mailing address in the Association's Shareholder Register, which is available for inspection upon request.
> 
> The proposed amendment is below.  New words are underlined, and words to be deleted are lined through.
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE XV.
> 
> SHAREHOLDER REGISTER*​*
> 
> The ownership of a Membership Interest or Share is evidenced by writing the name of the Member in the Shareholder Register.  The Association shall maintain the Shareholder Register in accordance with Aruban law.  At a minimum, such Shareholder Register shall contain the name( and local ), home postal mailing address and electronic mailing address of each Member, the number of Shares, the type of share (A-Shares or B-Shares), the name of any lender, and the date of issue.  Each Member shall file with the Association, a copy of any lien or encumbrance or pledge on or of the Member's Membership Interest, including any release, satisfaction or termination of same, as well as any other information or forms requested by the Board, in its sole discretion, to be filed with the Association. *



(*Note that the section I parenthesized - " and local " - is the section that is lined through in the original.  That function didn't transfer here with copy/paste.)

It's a little bit surprising that owners haven't been notified yet of the vote results, but only a little because the meeting was held on the weekend and yesterday was a holiday.  I would think, though, that an owner could contact Corey Guest or even their own Owner Services reps to find out the results.


----------



## modoaruba

Anybody ever read the bylaws prior to buying?
Anybody ever read the bylaws and fully understood them?
Anybody ever hire a lawyer to read them prior to buying?
If so they are a priviledged minority who probably did not buy.

This whole thing serves as a lesson to all of us.
As Sue points out,no matter what the concerned owners group does or for that matter,what any owner does,there is a piece of the bylaws that we all signed off on that says TOO BAD.That seems to be HER opinion.

Regardless of the final tally at the meeting,regardless of the ad in the paper pulled,regardless of the board's alienation of the concerned owners,TUG has seen in the last few days hundreds of views of this thread with many concerned posts.

Did MVCI shoot themselves in the foot for allowing such nagative advertisement?

Anyone thinking of buying a TS better be able to read and understand the bylaws.If not-buyer beware.


----------



## SueDonJ

Respectfully, Modo, I would say that anybody who is thinking about buying a timeshare (thinking about any purchase at all that requires a contract commitment as well as what could be a substantial outlay of money, really) should have at least a cursory knowledge of what that purchase will mean.  I agree that it's certainly unreasonable to expect that any new owner will have in advance full knowledge of the bylaws and other governing documents, or even that s/he'll acquire it prior to the expiration of any rescission period, sure, especially if the purchase is made on the external resale market because the governing documents may not be included in the paperwork.  But it's not at all unreasonable to expect new owners to realize that there will be requirements forced upon and protections afforded to every party to the contract.  That's only basic business logic.

Taken a step further, I'll repeat what I've said here before.  No timeshare owner has the right to demand from a timeshare developer or management company anything that is not the owner's right by virtue of the contracts; and, no timeshare owner should expect that s/he can engage such a company in any legal battle, and be successful, without benefit of competent legal counsel to aid in acquiring full knowledge of those governing documents.

One thing -  it's not my opinion at all that Marriott et al has come out of this MAOC situation with a bad reputation.  I know that doesn't shock you because you think I'm an apologist who would never be able to see wrong in anything they do, but truthfully that's not the case.  It's just that I haven't seen any wrongdoing _here_, based on the glut of information that has been related in this thread as well as what's been made available on my-vacationclub.com and other official websites.  As an MVCI owner and Marriott shareholder, I am satisfied that the company has not engaged in any illegalities throughout these processes, and that they've taken the proper proactive and defensive moves to protect shareholder interests.  That's really all I expect from the officers of any company with which I do business, and I consider the resorts' BODs and GMs as well as MVCI's legal department to be company officers of a sort.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Anybody ever read the bylaws prior to buying?
> Anybody ever read the bylaws and fully understood them?
> Anybody ever hire a lawyer to read them prior to buying?
> If so they are a priviledged minority who probably did not buy.
> 
> This whole thing serves as a lesson to all of us.
> As Sue points out,no matter what the concerned owners group does or for that matter,what any owner does,there is a piece of the bylaws that we all signed off on that says TOO BAD.That seems to be HER opinion.
> 
> Regardless of the final tally at the meeting,regardless of the ad in the paper pulled,regardless of the board's alienation of the concerned owners,TUG has seen in the last few days hundreds of views of this thread with many concerned posts.
> 
> Did MVCI shoot themselves in the foot for allowing such nagative advertisement?
> 
> *Anyone thinking of buying a TS better be able to read and understand the bylaws.*If not-buyer beware.



How else would you suggest any purchase would work that involves an HOA or a common-interest in property?

Anytime you own an interest in a property that is shared with other parties, it is important that you understand your respective rights and obligations. It is not like buying something that you have sole ownership and control of. 

If you buy a house in a community with a mandatory HOA you have the same situation.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Respectfully, Modo, I would say that anybody who is thinking about buying a timeshare (thinking about any purchase at all that requires a contract commitment as well as what could be a substantial outlay of money, really) should have at least a cursory knowledge of what that purchase will mean.  I agree that it's certainly unreasonable to expect that any new owner will have in advance full knowledge of the bylaws and other governing documents, or even that s/he'll acquire it prior to the expiration of any rescission period, sure, especially if the purchase is made on the external resale market because the governing documents may not be included in the paperwork.  But it's not at all unreasonable to expect new owners to realize that there will be requirements forced upon and protections afforded to every party to the contract.  That's only basic business logic.
> 
> Taken a step further, I'll repeat what I've said here before.  No timeshare owner has the right to demand from a timeshare developer or management company anything that is not the owner's right by virtue of the contracts; and, no timeshare owner should expect that s/he can engage such a company in any legal battle, and be successful, without benefit of competent legal counsel to aid in acquiring full knowledge of those governing documents.
> 
> One thing -  it's not my opinion at all that Marriott et al has come out of this MAOC situation with a bad reputation.  I know that doesn't shock you because you think I'm an apologist who would never be able to see wrong in anything they do, but truthfully that's not the case.  It's just that I haven't seen any wrongdoing _here_, based on the glut of information that has been related in this thread as well as what's been made available on my-vacationclub.com and other official websites.  As an MVCI owner and Marriott shareholder, I am satisfied that the company has not engaged in any illegalities throughout these processes, and that they've taken the proper proactive and defensive moves to protect shareholder interests.  That's really all I expect from the officers of any company with which I do business, and I consider the resorts' BODs and GMs as well as MVCI's legal department to be company officers of a sort.



Sue,do I understand that you are a Marriott shareholder?
If so, NOW I understand YOUR motive.
Whew,for a second I really thought you believe in what you state.


----------



## SueDonJ

Ha, clever Modo.

But I do believe what I wrote, and not because of being a piddling shareholder.  Why do you have such difficulty believing that what I've said repeatedly here about what I expect and want as an MVCI owner is the simple truth?  Namely that if I was an owner at MAOC, I would not join the efforts of this "concerned owners" group because it appears to me that the results you seek are contrary to the standards of a Marriott-managed resort.  And I LIKE my Marriott resorts!


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Ha, clever Modo.
> 
> But I do believe what I wrote, and not because of being a piddling shareholder.  Why do you have such difficulty believing that what I've said repeatedly here about what I expect and want as an MVCI owner is the simple truth?  Namely that if I was an owner at MAOC, I would not join the efforts of this "concerned owners" group because it appears to me that the results you seek are contrary to the standards of a Marriott-managed resort.  And I LIKE my Marriott resorts!



With due respect,your colors are showing.I rest my case.


----------



## SueDonJ

Okay, well, there's not much I can say to defend against the old "colors showing" offense.  So, moving on, as long as you're visiting the thread ...

Will you confirm that the bylaw amendment didn't pass in Saturday's vote?  The question's been asked here a few times from owners and non-owners alike, but it appears that any of you who do have knowledge of the result are deliberately ignoring the question.  Is there now a pact to withhold info from this thread?  (Although anybody could easily guess that it didn't pass, because if it had the news would have been plastered here in bold gigantic italic red type.)


----------



## modoaruba

I,personally do not know the result.
At this point it seems moot to me.
For now I see what we are up against.
It is not so much as to be right or wrong,but a respect that is ignored to those questioning the status quo.
As you can see with just OUR correspondence,we do not agree much of the time but we do have an open and respectful debate.If only MVCI and the concerned owners can have such debate it would speak volumes.
Don't you agree?


----------



## SueDonJ

Well this is a pickle because generally I do agree with you that respectful debate and disagreement is preferable to nasty dragdown insulting bashfests that can only lead to bad things.  Heck, respectful debate is healthy in every informal relationship.

Which leads me to where I would disagree with the notion that MVCI and its timeshare owners should be able to respectfully debate each other outside the constraints of the contracts between them.  The relationship between Marriott and the owners is not an informal relationship by any stretch of the imagination.  Under normal circumstances I would be surprised if any company made a conscious choice to forego the contract terms and deal with contracted parties on an informal basis.  Under extreme circumstances, such as the one in this situation where the company was threatened with a lawsuit almost from the getgo, it would sincerely shock me.


----------



## modoaruba

You have this barrier that you cannot cross.
This situation has gotten to the point that the rules,as you see them, stand in the way of seeking a solution.
Help me understand why a company like MVCI,knowing that at least a 1,000 owners having concerns are alienated and not given the respect of debate,would rather contribute to the further gather of dissention amongst more owners.
Owners have gotten hit hard in the wallet which is always the wake up call.
They do not want to hear that this was the cause of the prior board but rather what is THIS board going to do for us.
A good starting point is to address the issues presented by the concerns by open debate.
Any further alienation,wether it be by bylaws or not,would be detrimental to what ever can be salvaged at this juncture.


----------



## SueDonJ

We look at so many of the individual issues here differently, Modo, and this is only a few examples:

I don't agree that the rules stand in the way of a solution.  I do think, though, that the rules need to be followed while working out a solution.  But one that's mutually beneficial, not one that satisfies only this minority ownership group.

I also don't agree that dissent among owners is reason enough for Marriott to bypass the rules when dealing with the "concerned owners."  One reason that Marriott may not be giving your 1,000+ group the attention or importance you think you deserve, is that Marriott has however many other owners whose attention and importance is equally deserving.  They cannot be expected to satisfy the demands of this group to the detriment of the majority MAOC ownership and the overall MVCI ownership, especially if the demands of the group do not satisfy or are contrary to the provisions of the governing docs.

I think that one solution which the "concerned owners" group finds optimal - that of a "transparent" MAOC BOD whose members will be accessible to owners through private contact, and whose actions/decisions will be taken with the benefit of unrestrained owner input - is not realistic based on both the standard of a Marriott-managed resort and established BOD/HOA practices.

It's important that both the "concerned owners" group and Marriott et al need to be reasonable in dealing with each other.  From where I sit, reviewing all of the info in this thread and the official notices on various Marriott-related websites, Marriott has responded (in a manner consistent with their standard business practices) to the concerns and complaints generated by members of the group, and they've made financial concessions.  Yet none of you appears to acknowledge that effort, or recognize that Marriott is offering you some measure of financial relief that they are not required to give.  It does appear that the group will only be satisfied if Marriott gives in to their every demand, whether warranted by contract or not.  That is simply an unreasonable position.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg, Modo, isn't it?  You can choose to negate all my thoughts about these issues by saying that they're the ramblings of an ignorant Marriott apologist, or you can really read what I've written and recognize that for me, it really does all come down to what an owner can expect from the contracts.  Because that's all my ownership consists of -  contracts with rules of use (that may be subject to change) for individual weeks at certain resorts within certain seasons in certain unit configurations.  And as long as Marriott and I both follow the rules, we're hunky-dory.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> You have this barrier that you cannot cross.
> This situation has gotten to the point that the rules,as you see them, stand in the way of seeking a solution.
> Help me understand why a company like MVCI,knowing that at least a 1,000 owners having concerns are alienated and not given the respect of debate,would rather contribute to the further gather of dissention amongst more owners.
> Owners have gotten hit hard in the wallet which is always the wake up call.
> They do not want to hear that this was the cause of the prior board but rather what is THIS board going to do for us.
> A good starting point is to address the issues presented by the concerns by open debate.
> Any further alienation,wether it be by bylaws or not,would be detrimental to what ever can be salvaged at this juncture.



Modo,

The answer to your question is rather obvious. The concerned owners only represent a minority of the owners. They might be very vocal, they only represent a fraction of the total membership.

And as Sue notes, this is not a situation where the current board has been unresponsive to the concerns raised by your group. They have responded a number of times to the concerns.

The problem is that you do not like their answer. Which is completely your right. But it is not indicative of poor governance when the BoD does not cater to the whims of the vocal minority.

Nor is a open debate among all eligible voters with the board a reasonable process for governance. To what point or outcome?


----------



## marksue

*allans email to concerned owners*

Dear Owners,

I just returned from the Aruba Ocean Club Special Meeting held Saturday January 16, 2010.  The meeting was called by the Board of Directors to propose an amendment to the By Laws which if passed would allow for the adding of Owners home and email addresses to the Association Register. No surprise that the amendment did not pass because of the Boards and Marriott's (MVCI)  intent that the Register would be available for public use.

I am shocked and dismayed at the behavior of the Board and MCVI which I will describe in this letter.  I am convinced more now than ever that we must take action to replace this Board with individuals who will represent the interest of the Owners and not Marriott (MVCI).  

Mr. Knox, the current President of the BOD, introduced the Professional Parliamentarian - Nancy Sylvester (www.nancysylvester.com) (claiming to be one of 35 nationally recognized) who was attending for the Board and MVCI.  To my knowledge, in MVCI’s 25 year history with over 50 resorts, MCVI has not hired a parliamentarian to run any other owner Board, yet MCVI has used this process twice for the Marriott Aruba Ocean Club.  Who is paying these costs and why?

Also, in attendance were two attorneys representing the board and one attorney representing MCVI.  The attorney representing MCVI did not participate in meeting but did observe the meeting from the back of the room. Most of the questions were addressed by the two attorneys representing the Board and MCVI’s Regional Vice President Troy Asche. The Board members had little to say.  Huge amounts of Owner funds  were being spent for all this.  

Owners asked the Board if they could video tape and/or record the meeting for other owners to see.  The Parliamentarian stated that it was not allowed.  I then requested of the President Mr. Frank Knox if the Board would allow for the taping and/or recording.  The Board said NO.

The following misrepresentation were stated by MVCI and the Board to the Owners: -

That this meeting and amendment to the By Laws was required by the Court.  This is not true.  I challenged this statement and requested that they read me the judgment from the court and show me where it says anything about calling a meeting or making an amendment.  I had a copy with me and it is very clear.  It does not.  They refused to address this.  

Let me reiterate what the Concerned Owners requested. We requested that the Board and MVCI provide us a method to contact owners to inform them about the Ocean Club and provide the ability for owners to communicate with each other.  We did not request nor support that this information be made available to the public and or telemarketers as the Board stated.  The Board and MVCI knows this.  Since the Board refused our requests we sought a summary or expedited court ruling.  The judge ruled that he did not see the urgency and recommended that we go to the full court.  We are currently pursuing this.

We feel that this amendment was drafted as a scare tactic and anyone who did not know the real purpose would vote against the motion.  No one wants their information shared with the public.  This could have been easily corrected by an amendment to the By Laws creating an owner to owner register available for special purposes and under special conditions similar to Marriott's Grand Chateau in Las Vegas By Laws or the Board and MVCI could have just forwarded our information to all Owners. 

The tactics of MVCI and the Board to control the owner list to prevent any owner to owner contact begs the question. What are they afraid of ?        The vote as reported by the inspector of elections was:

Passed - 1,394 votes   (697 weeks)  (note 2 votes per owner week)
Failed -    7,352 votes  (3,676 weeks) 
Total voting - 8,746 votes (4373 weeks)

We have 218 villas times 51 weeks that were sold - 11,118 total owner weeks (not including Marriott votes which were not cast) - 6,745 owner weeks did not vote.  Over 60% of the Owners did not vote.

This Board has spent well over $100,000 of owner funds and MVCI has spent thousands more in the effort to mislead Owners and continue to fight the ability of owners to contact each other.  The Owner funds that are being spent are outrageous.  Not one dime had to be spent - if they wanted owners to communicate with each other.

Let’s review what MVCI and the Board have done to prevent Marriott Aruba Ocean Club owners from bringing transparency to the actions of the Board:

1.     They notified owners of this special session in a fashion that misrepresented how we would use the information in order to influence owner votes.

2.  They called a Special Meeting of Owners on a Saturday at 12 noon - the busiest day for check in/out.  Any owner checking out would have to be on the way to the airport by 12 noon and anyone one checking in has not arrived until after 12 noon.  In the 10 year history of the AOC - no owner meeting has ever been held on a Saturday.  Their actions assured a very low attendance of owners.   

3.  They drafted an amendment they knew would be defeated and called a special meeting of Owners stating that it was court ordered - which it was not.

4.     They have refused to allow the recording or video taping of Board/Owner meetings that could be shared with all owners

5.     They are trying to stop other owners from passing out cards on the beach in Aruba, which provide the web site address for the Aruba Ocean Club Concerned Owners.  They defended this action claiming that solicitation is illegal.  Our attorney clearly stated that this is not solicitation.

6.    They have threatened the Aruba Today newspaper that they would no longer distribute its paper on any Marriott properties if they continued to run our newspaper ad  The ad is presented below and has been pulled from Aruba Today.

ATTENTION 
Marriott Aruba Ocean Club Owners
Join over 1,000 fellow week owners & register at
aocconcernedowners.com 
created by owners to
Keep informed & learn the facts 

 (see my letter to Mr. Marriott about freedom of speech) 

Our numbers continue to grow as Owners get informed of what is happening under the direction of the current Board and MVCI.  They are wasting our money and misleading every Owner.  We will continue our efforts and I will be alerting you soon of our next steps to control costs and seek justice at the Aruba Ocean Club.  

Thank you for your continued support.  Please forward any suggestions and recommendations as we prepare for the annual meeting in May.   
Allan S. Cohen


----------



## SueDonJ

Oh for the love of Pete ...

Marksue, do you realize that each and every time you copy/paste something from Allan to this thread, you are proving the point that Marriott made when they said that "the owners have a way to correspond to each other and that is through TUG?"

Allan, at what point are you going to make an effort to "control costs" for the MAOC owners who have followed your lead, and continuously find themselves being stymied by the competent legal forces at work for Marriott et al?  This isn't rocket science here - you're simply throwing good money after bad decisions.  It's well past the time for you to hire a competent attorney who will review every governing doc and related laws to determine how exactly you should proceed, and will put his/her name and expertise to every correspondence and action from this point forward.  It makes no sense for you to continue on with business as usual, when it's obvious that you're not qualified for the task at hand.  (And I mean no disrespect or insult here - it is obvious that you are not an attorney, and are not utilizing the services of a competent attorney to make the best of your bad situation.)

For example, related to the solicitation issue:  Marriott's reaction should have been anticipated because your GM gave notice about this in the Dec 2009 newsletter.  





> All Owners are reminded to be courteous of others while they are on vacation. As outlined in Exhibit 3 of the Bylaws the Rules & Regulations state “There shall be no solicitation by any person anywhere on the Resort Property for any cause, charity or purpose whatsoever, unless specifically authorized in writing by the Board of Directors or Managing Agent...” We ask all Owners to respect the Association Bylaws.


  Also, this is one legal definition:  





> In civil law, solicitation means any request or appeal, either oral or written, or any endeavor to obtain, seek or plead for funds, property, financial assistance or other thing of value ...


  So, on what basis can your attorney "clearly state" that "... passing out cards on the beach in Aruba ..." is not solicitation, based on either the bylaw or standard legal definition, when the ultimate goal of new members being enticed to join the "concerned owners" group can satisfy the "thing of value" definition requirement?  And as an aside, are any of you aware that your attorney needs to "prove" a point, and not just "clearly state" it, in order for it to be true and legally binding?

Throughout this thread it's been obvious that MAOC owners, "concerned owners" or not, are concerned about the escalating costs and overall financial situation at your resort.  That's why I'm so amazed that someone, anyone, from the "concerned owners" group isn't asking similar questions to these now.  Are you really all satisfied with the actions of your leadership here?  Are you all still willing to continue on in the same manner, knowing that it is Marriott et al's intention to foist the costs for defending their actions onto all of the MAOC owners?  And that disproving your responsibility for those costs rests with the same leadership and legal counsel that has brought you to the point where you are today?


----------



## modoaruba

Just a clarification.
The beaches in Aruba are public.Other than the palapas and seating,Marriott has NO claim to what is being handed out on the beach.
If they did there would be no solicitations by other TS sales force,restaurants outside of Marriott,watersports outside of Marriott,etc.
Purely illegal to silence anyone other than those committing a criminal act.

I have observed myself a greater presence of security on the beach last we were there.Now I understand.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> Just a clarification.
> The beaches in Aruba are public.Other than the palapas and seating,Marriott has NO claim to what is being handed out on the beach.
> If they did there would be no solicitations by other TS sales force,restaurants outside of Marriott,watersports outside of Marriott,etc.
> *Purely illegal to silence anyone other than those committing a criminal act.*
> 
> I have observed myself a greater presence of security on the beach last we were there.Now I understand.



That, what I bolded, is simply untrue, Modo.  This is a civil law issue, not criminal.

Are you absolutely certain that no MAOC guests who were seated in the palapas or anywhere else on the beach that IS considered within the property, have been approached by these solicitors?  It only takes one instance for Marriott to prove in court that an action taken by a member of the "concerned owners" group against the bylaws/civil solicitation laws has occurred.


----------



## modoaruba

Marriott has no claim to the beach as private property other than their palapas and seats.The sand belongs to public Aruba for ALL to use within their laws.


----------



## SueDonJ

So let me see if I understand the implication.  Are you saying it's okay for a person standing on the sand beside a seated MAOC guest, to solicit membership in the "concerned owners" group by passing that seated guest an info card?  Hmmmm.  Are you willing to ante up the costs associated with defending that action based on the fine lines you're drawing with respect to the property boundary, legal definition of solicitation and/or the bylaw?  And does your attorney have knowledge of case law in which that defense was successful in a similar action?

Or, are you saying that NO seated MAOC guests have been approached?  In which case I'll ask again:  are you absolutely certain of that?


----------



## marksue

SueDonJ said:


> Oh for the love of Pete ...
> 
> Marksue, do you realize that each and every time you copy/paste something from Allan to this thread, you are proving the point that Marriott made when they said that "the owners have a way to correspond to each other and that is through TUG?"
> 
> Oh for the love of Pete.....
> 
> Very few owners know of this site so how can Marriott even think this is a way to correspond.  Will they send mail to all owners notifying them of this site?  That’s all we are trying to do is get information out to the owners.
> 
> Actually, I post it so you and Eric have all the information you need to bash the concerned owners.
> 
> No one is soliciting anything on the beach.  All we are doing is handing out cards to owners.  We are not soliciting their support or anything else, just telling them if they want information to go to this site.  The TS operators and water sport operator are going around and asking people in the chairs under the palapas if they want to do any water sports or look at time share.  In fact Marriott was out there soliciting people on the beach to look at their timeshare.  Hmmmm how can they do that it is illegal to solicit.   Oh right Marriott's interpretation of the rules. One rule for owners another for them.


----------



## modoaruba

While I was seated under my palapa I was solicited on every single day on every single week I was there by someone handing me a card or brochure regarding a TS sale or restaurant.
If that is legal under Aruban law than so is handing out a harmless card which only states the web site.
Are you saying that even a conversation regarding the concerned group is illegal on the beach?
Let me put it this way,I myself being an owner at the OC,when I am there it is my home for that time.No one will tell me what conversations I am to have with my neighbors in my home.If I want to talk about the site I will.If it means writing it down for those who ask I will.It is my neighbor's perogitive wether they want to hear more about my concerns or not.
It seems that the definition of solicitation has different meanings in Aruba which depends on the author.


----------



## SueDonJ

Sometimes the irrationality is astounding.

You know what?  At this point if I was an MAOC owner who has issues with or questions about the continuing actions of this "concerned owners" group, I'd seriously consider hiring my own competent attorney.  I'd ask him/her to research any- and everything that might protect me from the costs, in real money as well as damages to the contractual relationship between MVCI and the resort, that the actions (whether indirect or direct) of the members of this so-called "concerned owners" group are causing.

Because obviously, as evidenced by the complete disregard for the laws that do apply and the complete irrational discounting of any dissenting opinions shared by timeshare-savvy people, none of what's occurring now is (if it ever was) about ensuring that Marriott et al be held to abiding by the governing documents and/or laws that pertain to the MAOC resort.  I have my own ideas of what's at play here, but regardless, if I was an MAOC owner I would do everything in my power to separate myself from the damages this group has inflicted on all MAOC owners.  And I'd do anything possible to try to ensure that the monetary costs could be their sole responsibility.


----------



## modoaruba

I was waiting for the money threat.
First it was Marriott protecting us from the telemarketers-WHOOO-don't give them your info.
Now lets threaten with costs.
This could have been done without any cost if the group had every owners info.
Which now brings us full circle as to why they can't ;because of telemarketers.


----------



## lovearuba

*So whats your opinion on soliciting*



SueDonJ said:


> Sometimes the irrationality is astounding.
> 
> You know what? At this point if I was an MAOC owner who has issues with or questions about the continuing actions of this "concerned owners" group, I'd seriously consider hiring my own competent attorney. I'd ask him/her to research any- and everything that might protect me from the costs, in real money as well as damages to the contractual relationship between MVCI and the resort, that the actions (whether indirect or direct) of the members of this so-called "concerned owners" group are causing.
> 
> Because obviously, as evidenced by the complete disregard for the laws that do apply and the complete irrational discounting of any dissenting opinions shared by timeshare-savvy people, none of what's occurring now is (if it ever was) about ensuring that Marriott et al be held to abiding by the governing documents and/or laws that pertain to the MAOC resort. I have my own ideas of what's at play here, but regardless, if I was an MAOC owner I would do everything in my power to separate myself from the damages this group has inflicted on all MAOC owners. And I'd do anything possible to try to ensure that the monetary costs could be their sole responsibility.


 
Are you saying people do not have a right to give out cards with the web address on a public beach in Aruba?  You are one of the posters that supported the idea of the group to get the contact information to allow then to communicate with other owners weren't you?  I don't understand how you can defend the action of Marriott related to solicitation. Is it that you just cannot agree to any actions taken by the owners?

I cant imagine what you think about the numerous unsolicited phone calls we received from the candidates in the MA election. Thank goodness someone was willing to challenge the status quo.


----------



## cruisin

Is solicitation on public beaches in Aruba against the law?


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> Sue,do I understand that you are a Marriott shareholder?
> If so, NOW I understand YOUR motive.
> Whew,for a second I really thought you believe in what you state.


To question Sue's ethics due to owning stock is a personal attack, the attack the messenger ploy rather than deal with the issues, IMO.  We are all stake holders in Marriott to one degree or another and likely most of us have far more risk in timeshares than does any of us in Marriott stock.  Anyone who owns next door at the SC or another timeshare in Aruba likely has a larger conflict of interest than does Sue, even if they own at the OC also.

marksue, your interpretation of the events and intent seem pretty far out there from what I can see.  I would not hold the same opinions as you on the various aspects of actions by MVCI and the BOD.  Actually I'd likely have done much as they have done.  Were I in their shoes I'd do everything I could to squash any opposition like a bug in every legal way I could and including ways to increase the oppositions costs as much as possible.  I'm curious as to why their actions surprise you as you've put them in a clear situation of you against them with the rest of the owners caught in the middle and footing the bill.  ultimately your group will likely pay twice including the direct costs of the legal challenges plus the shared costs of the defense.  As I noted previously, I think the only real chance going forward is to get this quickly into the courts and make a full out attempt to prove ALL of the allegations beyond any shadow of a doubt.  I don't think reasonable doubt will be enough and frankly, I think you're going to have to prove not only affect but intent to be successful enough to justify the effort.

I must say it is entertaining though.


----------



## ecwinch

Before Allan tries to shift this to an issue of freedom speech, understand the limitations of that right. Our right to free speech is simply that - the right express our opinion. It is does not create obligation of governing bodies to ensure that every opinion is widely disseminated. That is the obligation of the minority group to solicit sufficient support.

Contrast this situation to what would occur if you failed to disagree with the decisions of your city government. You would have the exact same rights you have here in expressing your opinion. But your right to freedom of speech does not create an obligation of the local government to include a flyer outlining your opinion to every eligible voter. Nor do you have the right go down to city hall and request a list of home address, e-mail, and phone number of every registered voter. You bear the burden of obtaining that information. 

This situation is no different. The bottom line is the concerned owners group is being out-maneuvered. Work smarter, not harder.


----------



## modoaruba

Dean said:


> To question Sue's ethics due to owning stock is a personal attack, the attack the messenger ploy rather than deal with the issues, IMO.  We are all stake holders in Marriott to one degree or another and likely most of us have far more risk in timeshares than does any of us in Marriott stock.  Anyone who owns next door at the SC or another timeshare in Aruba likely has a larger conflict of interest than does Sue, even if they own at the OC also.
> 
> marksue, your interpretation of the events and intent seem pretty far out there from what I can see.  I would not hold the same opinions as you on the various aspects of actions by MVCI and the BOD.  Actually I'd likely have done much as they have done.  Were I in their shoes I'd do everything I could to squash any opposition like a bug in every legal way I could and including ways to increase the oppositions costs as much as possible.  I'm curious as to why their actions surprise you as you've put them in a clear situation of you against them with the rest of the owners caught in the middle and footing the bill.  ultimately your group will likely pay twice including the direct costs of the legal challenges plus the shared costs of the defense.  As I noted previously, I think the only real chance going forward is to get this quickly into the courts and make a full out attempt to prove ALL of the allegations beyond any shadow of a doubt.  I don't think reasonable doubt will be enough and frankly, I think you're going to have to prove not only affect but intent to be successful enough to justify the effort.
> 
> I must say it is entertaining though.



Dean,does this mean beer is off?Hope not.
I brought to light motive again.For posters to be so passionate on either side there is motive.Sue is a shareholder.That is not an attack.You state yourself that you have a stake in Marriott.That is your motive.Not an attack by me.

As far as Eric states that the group has to be smarter think of this,
Today alone this thread had hundreds of hits and still going.How many curious readers are more inclined to visit the group's site just out of curiousity?They will tell their TS friends who will tell others and so on.
With all the various weeks owned by the group and others,the coverage of telling the story is pretty much covered while at the resort.
This is a great advertisement tool not only for owners but also potential buyers of any TS.
As long as we debate,the larger the group grows.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> Are you saying people do not have a right to give out cards with the web address on a public beach in Aruba?  You are one of the posters that supported the idea of the group to get the contact information to allow then to communicate with other owners weren't you?  I don't understand how you can defend the action of Marriott related to solicitation. Is it that you just cannot agree to any actions taken by the owners?



Where did I say that what happens on the public beach in Aruba is something that Marriott should be concerned about?  Oh, that's right, I didn't say any such thing.  What I did say is that the MAOC governing docs and bylaws prohibit solicitation anywhere on property, and that your group would be well-served to understand exactly what that means as far as the actions that members of the "concerned owners" group are doing.  And, that Marriott put your group on notice that they have an issue with those actions when they sent out the Dec 2009 newsletter.

I also said that the standard legal definition of civil "solicitation" includes "any request or appeal for" and offers an arbitrary "thing of value" as a qualifier to meet the definition, and that there is also a specific MAOC bylaw which prohibits solicitation for "any purpose whatsoever."

We've been all through this but let's review:
Considering that:
1) the cards your group hands out suggest that MAOC owners should review your website for information; and
2) it is impossible to review any info on that website without "joining" the website; and
3) by "joining," MAOC owners are agreeing to a statement of support for the group's efforts; and
4) increasing enrollment in the "concerned owners" group is a thing of value.

Put all those together, and there is Marriott's case for solicitation if the cards are distributed anyplace on property.

And, review time again:  The beaches in Aruba are public.  However, the MAOC palapas and seating areas on the beach may be considered to be MAOC private property depending on how the governing docs define "on property."

Now I asked Modo if he was absolutely certain that no seated MAOC guest had been approached by an owner giving out cards - he didn't answer that.  I also asked him if he was comfortable enough to incur further legal costs defending that a person standing on the sand beside the private-property MAOC seats can pass cards to MAOC guests in those seats, and by doing so will not meet the "private property" requirement of the bylaw; or, if your lawyer has knowledge of case law where that has been successfully argued.  Again, no answer.

Make no mistake, I'm not demanding that he give me an answer.  But it's my opinion that there is enough doubt raised by the questions to get a competent legal opinion about it, and that it's simply something more for the "concerned owners" to think about when they're deciding for themselves if the escalating costs of their efforts is worth the risk assumed by passing those cards out to MAOC guests in the seating and palapas areas on the beach.



lovearuba said:


> I cant imagine what you think about the numerous unsolicited phone calls we received from the candidates in the MA election. Thank goodness someone was willing to challenge the status quo.



Eh, I didn't have to think anything about those calls.  We opted in to donotcall.gov several years ago and didn't get any political calls about yesterday's election.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> ... Today alone this thread had hundreds of hits and still going.How many curious readers are more inclined to visit the group's site just out of curiousity?They will tell their TS friends who will tell others and so on.
> With all the various weeks owned by the group and others,the coverage of telling the story is pretty much covered while at the resort.
> This is a great advertisement tool not only for owners but also potential buyers of any TS.
> As long as we debate,the larger the group grows.



You should consult with Mark before you offer any more opinions about how TUG is helping your cause and enabling owners to learn about your group's efforts.  Earlier today he tried to disprove Marriott's statement that TUG is one way that owners can correspond to each other.


----------



## modoaruba

Sorry I did not answer your questions.
First,I have never witnessed anyone anywhere with a card let alone pass one.
And yes I wouldn't mind sharing in the "liability" of passing said card.
I find it very difficult to believe that such enforcement is possibe nor legal.
What is a security guard going to do?Arrest the card holder?Imagine all the owners who happen to be group members hold up a card if that should happen.That would surely bring in the press.
Like I said before,my home,I can say and pass on any info to any of my neighbors as long as they are willing to hear and accept it.
What is the difference if info was passed on by conversation as opposed to the cards?
IMO this is an impossibility to enforce.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> You should consult with Mark before you offer any more opinions about how TUG is helping your cause and enabling owners to learn about your group's efforts.  Earlier today he tried to disprove Marriott's statement that TUG is one way that owners can correspond to each other.



TUG is only one means of communication and so far only reaches a minority.
There are other such boards scattered about which also reaches a minority.
Obviously the best way to at least reach every owner is through the BOD or MVCI.That will not happen.Yet.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> As long as we debate,the larger the group grows.



Glad to help.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> ... And yes I wouldn't mind sharing in the "liability" of passing said card.
> I find it very difficult to believe that such enforcement is possibe nor legal. ...
> IMO this is an impossibility to enforce.



Are you sure you've thought enough about all this to so casually accept that the risk is worth the reward for the owners who are passing the cards on what may be private resort property, against a specific bylaw?

I'm willing to bet that every MVCI resort has a similar penalty for owners who do not adhere to the bylaws.  Here's the quote from SurfWatch's governing docs:


> ... The failure by an occupant to abide by, and comply with, these Plan Rules or the other project governing documents may result in the imposition of fines or other penalties and/or the suspension of such occupant's rights and privileges as an occupant, including a suspension of such Owner's or occupant's use and exchange privileges. ...



That's definitely not a risk I'd take, not without definitive support from a competent legal advisor.  Nope, I wouldn't even be willing to assume the risk of advising other owners that they should pass out the cards (which, coincidentally, is a risk that the owners of your website are assuming by putting the suggestion right there on the homepage.)


----------



## lovearuba

*get informed*

Periodically I post the web address to allow owners that are interested to read the entire story. 

www.aocconcernedowners.com


----------



## m61376

Let me preface my comments by admitting I, too, have a vested interest in this discussion, since we own at the SC next door and since we own a Marriott timeshare in general. I think all Marriott owners have an interest in this, because the ripple effect is sure to impact how MVCI interacts with all the owners. For example, BOD contact info. seems to have been removed from the other resorts as well, likely a direct effect of this action.

Besides "transparency," what are you really hoping (and, moreover, what are your realistic expectations) to accomplish? Are you expecting Marriott to fully finance the replacement of a roof that you enjoyed half its useful lifespan? Whether or not the roof was good in the first place, it is unrealistic to expect Marriott to fund more than the almost half that they already have (roughly equivalent to the decrease in lifespan). I understand there was damage to the buildings presumably because of the roof and window issues. How much of the renovation cost was attributable to that- that can be factually sustained and withstand legal scrutiny? Unless you can PROVE that prior construction issues caused "X" amount of damages, no matter how right you may be, you will unlikely prevail.

And, if you could prove your case (which would be a huge legal hurdle), what type of monetary damages are there other than the roof? How do they compare to the mounting legal bills, which ultimately the owners will be shouldering, since they are legal expenses associated with the resort. Whether they are the acting BOD's legal team, or the Marriott's legal team, you will be footing the bill. Flying in those lawyers cost someone a lot of money; I think we all know who that will be. 

At some point you have to take a deep breath and decide if what you can realistically achieve even in the best case scenario is worth the mounting expenses. On the flip side, if you considered a less antagonistic approach- one akin to: we feel there have been problems due to past construction issues that we understand you've helped us correct that have incurred tremendous costs and, while we appreciate Marriott's contributions, as concerned owners we feel that we should be kept informed of issues with the building and costs incurred, etc.- basically, asking for the "transparency" that you so desperately want, but not with a litigious threat, you might be able to make better inroads. Before you started sown the lawsuit path I would venture to guess you might have had a bit more cooperation; at this point I would venture to guess it will be a long time before the lawyers let anyone let their guard down to share information. 

The bottom line at this point is do you really think it is worth it, and has the concerned owners group talked about how they are going to explain to the owners at large- the owners of those 11,000+ owner weeks- the budget entries for legal and other administrative expenses? Sometimes even being on the side of right isn't enough. I am not questioning your motives; I am just, as others have, injecting a dose of reality here. if you are unlikely to gain more than you stand to lose, maybe it's time for a different approach and try to mend fences.

Like it or not, you need Marriott more than they need you and they have much deeper pockets. They have lawyers on retainer and have every expectation of being able to ultimately pass the costs onto the owners, so ultimately you'll be footing both sides of the bill, since you support the BOD. Sometimes what sounds like a defeatist attitude makes sense.


----------



## tlwmkw

m61376 is right.  The concerned owners may end up with a Pyrrhic victory (though at this point I don't think they will even get that) and have lost more than they gained.  Even if you have the moral high ground you may not win this situation.

No one has answered the question as to how they think Marriott controls the current board.  Why do you keep saying the board is just a puppet board?  There is no way Marriott can predict how a group of individuals will act or vote when they join the board- there are so many examples of this in life that it makes this argument really ridiculous.  Your group keeps dodging this question.  

The current lack of transparency clearly stems from the threat of legal action.  They have circled the wagons and are prepared to fight.


----------



## LisaRex

> Eh, I didn't have to think anything about those calls. We opted in to donotcall.gov several years ago and didn't get any political calls about yesterday's election.



Consider yourself lucky.  Donotcall.gov lists do not apply to politicians or charities.  

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt107.shtm

"29. Are calls from political organizations or calls soliciting for charities covered?

Political solicitations are not covered by the TSR at all, since they are not included in its definition of “telemarketing.” Charities are not covered by the requirements of the national registry."


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Are you sure you've thought enough about all this to so casually accept that the risk is worth the reward for the owners who are passing the cards on what may be private resort property, against a specific bylaw?
> 
> I'm willing to bet that every MVCI resort has a similar penalty for owners who do not adhere to the bylaws.  Here's the quote from SurfWatch's governing docs:
> 
> 
> That's definitely not a risk I'd take, not without definitive support from a competent legal advisor.  Nope, I wouldn't even be willing to assume the risk of advising other owners that they should pass out the cards (which, coincidentally, is a risk that the owners of your website are assuming by putting the suggestion right there on the homepage.)



I was always a risk taker especially if I am told that my constitutional right of free speech is threatened especially in my own home.
I have never read the bylaws nor do I care to read them.
I live my life according to my own moral compass.That's what is right for me.


----------



## SueDonJ

LisaRex said:


> Consider yourself lucky.  Donotcall.gov lists do not apply to politicians or charities.
> 
> http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt107.shtm
> 
> "29. Are calls from political organizations or calls soliciting for charities covered?
> 
> Political solicitations are not covered by the TSR at all, since they are not included in its definition of “telemarketing.” Charities are not covered by the requirements of the national registry."



We did wonder because everywhere around us we heard about eight zillion politicians and celebrities who were hounding people to death with those robo-calls.  And, we do get calls for charitable donations quite often.  (Oh, and there is one chimney cleaning company that calls every Friday at 3:15 or so, who can't seem to understand what Do Not Call means.)

Our number is listed, we're registered voters ... what other criteria was used?  Maybe it's like you say and we were simply lucky.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> I was always a risk taker especially if I am told that my constitutional right of free speech is threatened especially in my own home.
> I have never read the bylaws nor do I care to read them.
> I live my life according to my own moral compass.That's what is right for me.



All due respect, Modo ...

Your timeshare isn't your own home.  It's a shared ownership with stated rules and regulations that every owner, the developer and the management company agreed to uphold by virtue of their shared contracts.

You sure do have the right to consciously remain ignorant of what those rules and regulations are.  But don't you see that it's to your complete disadvantage to do so when you are demanding certain things from the developer and management company?  Really, how can you possibly expect the "concerned owners" to be successful in any effort you undertake if this is the prevailing wisdom?!?!  I'm honestly shocked.

Generally I wouldn't consider that a "moral compass" has any bearing on timeshare ownership, and I wouldn't introduce it into a timeshare discussion, because there are no moral guidelines included in the contracts.  But you opened that door so let me ask you, do you feel any moral responsibility to your fellow owners who are suffering the effects (both monetary and in the owner/developer/management relationships) of your voluntary inclusion in a group which is taking legal actions against parties to your shared contracts?  You don't feel any responsibility at all to them to educate yourself about what your rights and responsibilities really are, even though your actions can potentially cause them damages?


----------



## modoaruba

Give me a break.Your tone is absurd.
I am not doing anything but trying to get a message to the owners of what is taking place without siding with anyone.
I feel that the prevention and obstacles having been put forth by MVCI and the BOD in having information filter to all of the owners from their constituants,speaks volumes that there is something to hide.
It is up to all the owners to decide on what to do with the info.
My main concern is that the messengers keep getting shot at.
Rules or no rules,that is wrong.
Look where closed door meetings got your senator elected.The people have spoken.
And yes it's my home for that week.


----------



## tlwmkw

Modoaruba,

If you are having a discussion with someone at the bbq, by the pool, or on the beach at the ocean club and happen to discuss the concerned owners group then no one could fault you for giving a card or information to those people.  That is entirely appropriate.  I think what suedonj is talking about is actual soliciting where you are foisting the information on people without any preamble.  There is a subtle difference between the two.

By the way, why is no one responding to my question as to how you think MVCI can control the board?  You keep stating they are puppets but you give no proof of how this can be done by Marriott.  If you make these assertions then you need to be able to back them up.  Your group should stick to facts and not make things up.

tlwmkw


----------



## SueDonJ

Honestly, Modo, I'm not using a "tone."  But there's no way for me to prove that, and pretty much I've used enough words to try to understand you and get you to understand me, so we're probably done for now.  It's been interesting, again.   

Except, I'm not getting why you and LoveAruba have introduced yesterday's MA election into this discussion.  Regardless of the "why" Scott Brown was elected, the "how" was simply a majority rule.  That's how politics works.  Timeshares work differently.  I don't see the connection.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Give me a break.Your tone is absurd.
> I am not doing anything but trying to get a message to the owners of what is taking place without siding with anyone.
> I feel that the prevention and obstacles having been put forth by MVCI and the BOD in having information filter to all of the owners from their constituants,speaks volumes that there is something to hide.
> It is up to all the owners to decide on what to do with the info.
> My main concern is that the messengers keep getting shot at.
> Rules or no rules,that is wrong.
> Look where closed door meetings got your senator elected.The people have spoken.
> And yes it's my home for that week.



The messengers are "getting shot at" due to their tactics in delivering the message. 

The AOC board has made a business decision based on the facts and in the best interest of the owners to not pursue litigation and to accept MVCI's offer to share the costs of the roof repair. They are your duly elected board, and that decision was made when Allan was on the board. 

But your group disagrees and want's to reverse that majority decision of the board. And the only legal recourse you have to challenge that decision is to prove that the AOC BoD was under the control of MVCI and abandoned their fiduciary responsibilities to the owners. Unfortunately, you offer no proof of this control, similar to most of your claims. 

And if your group has the numbers that have been claimed, why not just introduce a by-law amendment modeled after the Nevada statute that Allan claims would meet your requirements?


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Honestly, Modo, I'm not using a "tone."  But there's no way for me to prove that, and pretty much I've used enough words to try to understand you and get you to understand me, so we're probably done for now.  It's been interesting, again.
> 
> Except, I'm not getting why you and LoveAruba have introduced yesterday's MA election into this discussion.  Regardless of the "why" Scott Brown was elected, the "how" was simply a majority rule.  That's how politics works.  Timeshares work differently.  I don't see the connection.



The reason the election was introduced was because the result was due to the political climate ignoring the contituancy.
The people were made aware of what was happening and they wanted real change.
If meetings were taped we can see who runs the meetings.


----------



## marksue

ecwinch said:


> The messengers are "getting shot at" due to their tactics in delivering the message.
> 
> 
> But your group disagrees and want's to reverse that majority decision of the board. And the only legal recourse you have to challenge that decision is to prove that the AOC BoD was under the control of MVCI and abandoned their fiduciary responsibilities to the owners. Unfortunately, you offer no proof of this control, similar to most of your claims.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> That was the initial goal. All we are doing now is trying to get information to all owners.  If Marriott sends out our mailing to all owners that is fine.  With there refusal to send out our mailing, which we agreed to pay for, that is why we are now going after the entire list of owners ad thier contact information.  Inthe meantime we will do all we can to get people to our site, none of which is illegal.
> 
> The level of distrust is due to Marriott and the boards actions many of which ahv been documented, which have been documented right here on tug.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> The reason the election was introduced was because the result was due to the political climate ignoring the contituancy.



Well, the way I see it, the "constituency" at MAOC has not been ignored.  In fact several different issues were raised by the "concerned owners" group that resulted in votes being required from owners.  It's not Marriott's problem or fault that the "concerned owners" did not have benefit of legal counsel enough so that their issues could be presented exactly as they wanted them to be, and that they were on the losing side of the majority-rule results of those votes.  Marriott et al have been proactive and are working with a competent legal team; the same cannot be said for the "concerned owners" group.



modoaruba said:


> The people were made aware of what was happening and they wanted real change.



If you're trying to equate this to MAOC, which I guess you are, then the "people" must refer to the owners?  Okay, well, the owners have been made aware of what is happening.  Throughout this developing situation there have been more official communications from Marriott et al about the issues that concern the resort's owners, the BOD, the management company and the developer than there have been issued by any other MVCI resort.

The "people" wanted real change?  Sure, some of them, a minority number of them, did.  But the majority didn't, and the reasons for that are irrelevant.  The excuse that some members of the "concerned owners" group attribute to owners who have not joined their efforts, that those owners are completely ignorant of what's transpired at your shared resort, holds no water at all.  Marriott has contacted them and made the very same information available to them that they've made to you.  So, they're either apathetic or they've accepted the explanations in those myriad Marriott communications.  But again, it doesn't matter why they voted the way they did against the change your group wants.

Even if the "concerned owners" group consisted of 100% owner participation, the contractual obligations still require that you would have to follow contracted stipulations and proper legal procedures in order to effect change at your resort.  The terms of the contracts would still apply, meaning that the costs for such legal actions would still rest with the owners.  Sure, 100% voter support would mean that your group would be on the winning side of the votes, but what does that really mean?

After the first, you may have ultimately succeeded in ousting member(s) of the BOD.  Like tlwmkw and others have asked repeatedly, what could you do to assure that the new member(s) voted in as replacements would satisfy the expectations of your group?  In respect to the unsubstantiated allegations of your group that Marriott has installed a "puppet" BOD, none of you have yet to explain how exactly that was done.  Without knowing how it is done you certainly can't expect to be able to stop it from happening again.

After the next several votes, if you had 100% or a majority of the votes, you would have had access to the ownership's contact information.  What then?  You'd contact them all, at your expense, to give them whatever information you think is your smoking gun.  (Which, again, if it is as damaging to Marriott et al as you allege, should have been produced a long time ago so as to prevent the legal fees.)  You would still have to follow procedure and put individual concerns up for separate Special Meetings to enact a vote on the separate issues, and you would still be subject to the owners being apathetic about the issues or understanding of Marriott's myriad explanations.

[edited to add:}  The flip side, of course, of 100% owner participation in the "concerned owners" group is that Marriott et al would recognize that the ownership was interested in a resort which would be run in many ways contrary to the Marriott-managed resort standard, at which point they'd probably take action to dissolve the management contract between MVCI and MAOC.



modoaruba said:


> If meetings were taped we can see who runs the meetings.



As tlwmkw, who appears to be knowledgeable about such things, related here and here, you probably could work out arrangements to tape certain meeting activity if you're willing to accept the costs and requirements of a professional agency.  Complete informal access to every meeting will not happen; that expectation is unreasonable based on the business standards.


----------



## modoaruba

You are ignoring that I am saying that the group never had a chance to present their story due to the "rules".
So the outcomes you portrait are as you say.
I am not debating that.
This entire vote we just had at the OC was a sham.
Owners were deceived that the info was going to be used other than what was intended.And that was to let them read concerns of other owners.
There was a threat of increased legal fees.Not if the BOD allowed the communication to occur.
The BOD and MVCI sent reminders to vote.The group could not.
It is like having campaign signs along our roadways prior to elections,but only one party can advertise.
Welcome to the USSR


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> You are ignoring that I am saying that the group never had a chance to present their story due to the "rules".
> So the outcomes you portrait are as you say.
> I am not debating that.
> This entire vote we just had at the OC was a sham.
> Owners were deceived that the info was going to be used other than what was intended.And that was to let them read concerns of other owners.
> There was a threat of increased legal fees.Not if the BOD allowed the communication to occur.
> The BOD and MVCI sent reminders to vote.The group could not.
> It is like having campaign signs along our roadways prior to elections,but only one party can advertise.
> Welcome to the USSR



Modo, how did you find out about the "concerned owners" group and what convinced you to join their efforts?  Think about it.  Whatever your answer is here, EVERY owner who is dissatisfied with the situation at your resort has the exact same avenues available to make the exact same choice that you did.  You can't force owners to seek out information any more than you can force them to give you the choicest unit whenever you visit the resort.  And you can't force information onto them unless they give you their permission.

No surprise, I disagree that the vote was a sham because it followed procedure.  The governing docs contained an amendment pertaining to the contact info for each owner; a change to that amendment was the proper form for introducing the issue of making contact information available to other owners.  (As opposed to a brand new amendment, which would conflict with the existing one.)  The fact that Marriott was proactive in wording the change in the bylaw amendment such that owners would conceivably be worried about their contact information being made available to non-owners was a smart business decision, as was Marriott's communication to the owners explaining what the results of voting for the change could conceivably mean at any point in the future.  The blame for more restrictive language (that would satisfy the "concerned owners" group but not allow contact info access to anyone but owners) not being included in the change rests solely with the "concerned owners" group, both because they gave notice to Marriott what their intentions were and because they allowed Marriott to jump in ahead of them to call the Special Meeting.

The "concerned owners" group is the underdog here, no doubt, and has been from the very beginning of this situation.  But underdogs have to play by the rules, too.


----------



## modoaruba

The way I found out about what is going on was by sheer accident.
I was having a conversation with a board member regarding a concern I had with a room I was given.In that conversation I was told of a few things about the resort I wasn't aware of and was asked if I heard of TUG.
Until then I hadn't heard of any of this nor this board.
After having read this thread,you can see for yourself that I have not posted at the beginning,I became interested.
If that conversation had not occured I might never have heard about the group and most likely would have thrown out the mailing regarding the vote.


----------



## tlwmkw

Modo,

Why are you so surprised by Marriott with-holding personal information about owners.  If you have access to the contact information to all owners at the ocean club then does that entitle any owner to this information?  I think that is why Marriott worded things the way they did- they would be giving information to a group which they have no control over (and who could then sell or release that information to anyone else), and it would set a precedent that any owner could access this information for whatever purpose they see fit.  With identity theft and other problems becoming rampant I can quite understand why Marriott would resist releasing contact information.  If they did they would be liable in a huge way if that information fell into the wrong hands. As an owner there you should be glad that they are protecting your information so vigorously.

tlwmkw


----------



## modoaruba

tlwmkw said:


> Modo,
> 
> Why are you so surprised by Marriott with-holding personal information about owners.  If you have access to the contact information to all owners at the ocean club then does that entitle any owner to this information?  I think that is why Marriott worded things the way they did- they would be giving information to a group which they have no control over (and who could then sell or release that information to anyone else), and it would set a precedent that any owner could access this information for whatever purpose they see fit.  With identity theft and other problems becoming rampant I can quite understand why Marriott would resist releasing contact information.  If they did they would be liable in a huge way if that information fell into the wrong hands. As an owner there you should be glad that they are protecting your information so vigorously.
> 
> tlwmkw



You really believe that?No other motive?


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> ecwinch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The messengers are "getting shot at" due to their tactics in delivering the message.
> 
> 
> But your group disagrees and want's to reverse that majority decision of the board. And the only legal recourse you have to challenge that decision is to prove that the AOC BoD was under the control of MVCI and abandoned their fiduciary responsibilities to the owners. Unfortunately, you offer no proof of this control, similar to most of your claims.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> That was the initial goal. All we are doing now is trying to get information to all owners.  If Marriott sends out our mailing to all owners that is fine.  With there refusal to send out our mailing, which we agreed to pay for, that is why we are now going after the entire list of owners ad thier contact information.  Inthe meantime we will do all we can to get people to our site, none of which is illegal.
> 
> The level of distrust is due to Marriott and the boards actions many of which ahv been documented, which have been documented right here on tug.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What actions? That they have not made things easy for your group? That they adhered to the by-laws in governing the HOA? That they did not allow Allan to ignore the by-laws pertaining to term limits? That you attempted to ignore the by-laws and wanted to create your own process for a recall election?
> 
> If your intent is simply to inform your fellow owners, then stop trying to manipulate their opinion by partial, inaccurate, and biased information. Presenting only the information that is most favorable to your position is not informing someone. The BoD has no obligation to disseminate information of the type you have presented here.
> 
> You want to present this picture that your hands are clean, and all you want to do is communicate with your fellow owners. However you cannot erase your actions of the last 12 months. It is incredibly naive to think that the Board is not well-justified in opposing you given the history that is well-documented in this thread. You now seemingly want them to forget about that period in order to provide you with the access you desire.
> 
> And since you seemingly now are dropping your objective of reversing the decision not sue MVCI over the roof, what are the material changes you are seeking the current board to make? You formed the mob against the perfect storm of the economy and a large increase in m/f. But were now will you lead them?
Click to expand...


----------



## lovearuba

*open communication*



ecwinch said:


> marksue said:
> 
> 
> 
> What actions? That they have not made things easy for your group? That they adhered to the by-laws in governing the HOA? That they did not allow Allan to ignore the by-laws pertaining to term limits? That you attempted to ignore the by-laws and wanted to create your own process for a recall election?
> 
> If your intent is simply to inform your fellow owners, then stop trying to manipulate their opinion by partial, inaccurate, and biased information. Presenting only the information that is most favorable to your position is not informing someone. The BoD has no obligation to disseminate information of the type you have presented here.
> 
> You want to present this picture that your hands are clean, and all you want to do is communicate with your fellow owners. However you cannot erase your actions of the last 12 months. It is incredibly naive to think that the Board is not well-justified in opposing you given the history that is well-documented in this thread. You now seemingly want them to forget about that period in order to provide you with the access you desire.
> 
> And since you seemingly now are dropping your objective of reversing the decision not sue MVCI over the roof, what are the material changes you are seeking the current board to make? You formed the mob against the perfect storm of the economy and a large increase in m/f. But were now will you lead them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not about going back and fighting over money for a roof. That train already left the track, Its not about Marksue or Allan's effots to get Marriott to pay for maintenance problems that we feel strongly they should be responsible for paying. Its about getting a board that is transparent with their actions, not a board that is silent in board meetings and allowing Marriott to run the meeting. Its about being willing to sit down with the owners that have concerns and listening, It doesnt mean you have to agree, its really about respecting owners opinions. Putting surveillance on owners that are giving out web cards on a public beach is not right. For folks here weighing in and defending the solicitation excuse and asking owners that complain about this tactic to absolutely confirm that they did not step on Marriott's property shows disrespect for owners concerns. Is it Marriott's property or does it belong to the same owners that are asking other owners to go to the website and check it out. No one questions the Aloe Man in Aruba. Marriott knows he's there and he is definately soliciting.  Setting up meetings at times that will ensure low owner partiicpation is just plain not right. When you disect the claims of the owners, be fair. Also seriously disect Marriott's action and the Boards actions. I know this is hard, especially if you have a vested interest in Marriott and especially if you feel they are good to you.  Its okay to hide behind bylaws that were developed to protect Marriott but its also okay to queston why some of the actions of Marriott are just not right.
Click to expand...


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> The way I found out about what is going on was by sheer accident.
> I was having a conversation *with a board member* regarding a concern I had with a room I was given.In that conversation I was told of a few things about the resort I wasn't aware of and was asked if I heard of TUG.
> Until then I hadn't heard of any of this nor this board.
> After having read this thread,you can see for yourself that I have not posted at the beginning,I became interested.
> If that conversation had not occured I might never have heard about the group and most likely would have thrown out the mailing regarding the vote.



Hmmm.  Interesting.  Was this the same board member who suggested to Mark that there were many owners who were interested in joining a class action suit against Marriott, which is what Mark posted when he began this thread?  Or have there been two (or more) board members who have pointed owners in the direction of an adversarial relationship with Marriott?


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> This is not about going back and fighting over money for a roof. That train already left the track, Its not about Marksue or Allan's effots to get Marriott to pay for maintenance problems that we feel strongly they should be responsible for paying. Its about getting a board that is transparent with their actions, not a board that is silent in board meetings and allowing Marriott to run the meeting. Its about being willing to sit down with the owners that have concerns and listening, It doesnt mean you have to agree, its really about respecting owners opinions. Putting surveillance on owners that are giving out web cards on a public beach is not right. For folks here weighing in and defending the solicitation excuse and asking owners that complain about this tactic to absolutely confirm that they did not step on Marriott's property shows disrespect for owners concerns. Is it Marriott's property or does it belong to the same owners that are asking other owners to go to the website and check it out. No one questions the Aloe Man in Aruba. Marriott knows he's there and he is definately soliciting.  Setting up meetings at times that will ensure low owner partiicpation is just plain not right. When you disect the claims of the owners, be fair. Also seriously disect Marriott's action and the Boards actions. I know this is hard, especially if you have a vested interest in Marriott and especially if you feel they are good to you.  Its okay to hide behind bylaws that were developed to protect Marriott but its also okay to queston why some of the actions of Marriott are just not right.



You keep saying, "not right."  Not right according to what?  As long as what Marriott does is supported by the governing docs, even if you don't like whatever they do and/or however they do it, you don't have a right to demand that they change what they do and/or how they do it.  You simply don't.

So if what they've done isn't illegal or something that constitutes a breach of the contract between you and Marriott, you're pretty much wasting your time and your money.  But, it's your time and money, you can certainly spend it however you want to.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Hmmm.  Interesting.  Was this the same board member who suggested to Mark that there were many owners who were interested in joining a class action suit against Marriott, which is what Mark posted when he began this thread?  Or have there been two (or more) board members who have pointed owners in the direction of an adversarial relationship with Marriott?



What is your intent with this line of questioning aside from that the conversation was against the rules?


----------



## cruisin

SueDonJ said:


> You keep saying, "not right."  Not right according to what?  As long as what Marriott does is supported by the governing docs, even if you don't like whatever they do and/or however they do it, you don't have a right to demand that they change what they do and/or how they do it.  You simply don't.
> 
> So if what they've done isn't illegal or something that constitutes a breach of the contract between you and Marriott, you're pretty much wasting your time and your money.  But, it's your time and money, you can certainly spend it however you want to.



I agree.

 Marriott has done a better job than most in making owners think that Marriott cares about them. They care about their bottom line.  The bad economy has exposed the true nature of the timeshare developers. As they have less resorts to sell, they will not need to pretend they care, it will not matter, Marriott kept their maintenence fees artificially low until the last few years, and that was not because they cared.

If I owned here, I would probably be a part of the concerned owners group for only as long as it took me to get rid of the thing. If it is really as bad as represented, then it will be worthless soon enough. Even a court case looks doomed in a place like Aruba. I would have a hard time believing a judge in Aruba would decide against  $$Mariott$$ regardless of "right and wrong"


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> What is your intent with this line of questioning aside from that the conversation was against the rules?



I just find it interesting, that's all, because I don't remember you mentioning it any of the times that something similar was discussed here.  Namely, Mark's statement and later retraction that a board member suggested to him that owners might consider a class action suit against Marriott.  I have no idea if your conversation with a board member consisted of the same suggestion, so can't say if it broke the same rules that Mark's did.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> Dean,does this mean beer is off?Hope not.
> I brought to light motive again.For posters to be so passionate on either side there is motive.Sue is a shareholder.That is not an attack.You state yourself that you have a stake in Marriott.That is your motive.Not an attack by me.
> 
> As far as Eric states that the group has to be smarter think of this,
> Today alone this thread had hundreds of hits and still going.How many curious readers are more inclined to visit the group's site just out of curiousity?They will tell their TS friends who will tell others and so on.
> With all the various weeks owned by the group and others,the coverage of telling the story is pretty much covered while at the resort.
> This is a great advertisement tool not only for owners but also potential buyers of any TS.
> As long as we debate,the larger the group grows.


I disagree, I see your post as an attack on Sue's ethics.  No one is going to post if they have no interest at all.  Had you pointed out that it COULD affect her position, she could have responded but you stated emphatically that that was her motive, implying her only or main motive  I have interest simply due it it being Marriott.  While I don't own Marriott stock, I have a number of Marriott weeks.  A quote that I think sums it up is that "the middle is to the right of the left". 



> This is not about going back and fighting over money for a roof. That train already left the track, Its not about Marksue or Allan's effots to get Marriott to pay for maintenance problems that we feel strongly they should be responsible for paying. Its about getting a board that is transparent with their actions, not a board that is silent in board meetings and allowing Marriott to run the meeting. Its about being willing to sit down with the owners that have concerns and listening, It doesnt mean you have to agree, its really about respecting owners opinions. Putting surveillance on owners that are giving out web cards on a public beach is not right.


As I've said before, there is no real measure to determine if you get what you want in transparency unless time dictates another similar event to compare.  As for soliciting, I would not expect Marriott to allow any and even if technically legal, I would expect them to attempt to stop it.  Just like they should not allow a magazine with a negative add to be distributed.


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> That was the initial goal. All we are doing now is trying to get information to all owners.  If Marriott sends out our mailing to all owners that is fine.  With there refusal to send out our mailing, which we agreed to pay for, that is why we are now going after the entire list of owners ad thier contact information.  Inthe meantime we will do all we can to get people to our site, none of which is illegal.
> 
> The level of distrust is due to Marriott and the boards actions many of which ahv been documented, which have been documented right here on tug.


Am I understanding this correctly?  So you've abandoned legal measures against the resort and Marriott?  Marriott's won, you've given up?  BTW, I'd qualify dropping the legal avenues and just trying to make everyone aware as throwing in the towel if that's the case.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> This is not about going back and fighting over money for a roof. That train already left the track, Its not about Marksue or Allan's effots to get Marriott to pay for maintenance problems that we feel strongly they should be responsible for paying. Its about getting a board that is transparent with their actions, not a board that is silent in board meetings and allowing Marriott to run the meeting. Its about being willing to sit down with the owners that have concerns and listening, It doesnt mean you have to agree, its really about respecting owners opinions. Putting surveillance on owners that are giving out web cards on a public beach is not right. For folks here weighing in and defending the solicitation excuse and asking owners that complain about this tactic to absolutely confirm that they did not step on Marriott's property shows disrespect for owners concerns. Is it Marriott's property or does it belong to the same owners that are asking other owners to go to the website and check it out. No one questions the Aloe Man in Aruba. Marriott knows he's there and he is definately soliciting.  Setting up meetings at times that will ensure low owner partiicpation is just plain not right. When you disect the claims of the owners, be fair. Also seriously disect Marriott's action and the Boards actions. I know this is hard, especially if you have a vested interest in Marriott and especially if you feel they are good to you.  Its okay to hide behind bylaws that were developed to protect Marriott but its also okay to queston why some of the actions of Marriott are just not right.



Dissect the actions of your group before you venture down that path. You cannot defame MVCI and the Board for 12 months and not expect that those actions will have consequences. Allan cannot ignore how he violated his fiduciary responsibilities as a elected member of the board by encouraging Mark's efforts. He cannot ignore how he abused his position by providing e-mail addresses of owners to encourage opposition with the decisions of the board. It was those tactics and others that are governing the manner in which the Board is dealing with you now.

At one moment in time I believe there was an opportunity for this to be resolved in the manner you suggest. Many suggested it. But one only needs read the title of this thread to recognized that nature of Mark's attacks on the board quickly closed that option.

Given how the Board has been demonized here, what would be the point of it?  You cannot un-ring that bell.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> I just find it interesting, that's all, because I don't remember you mentioning it any of the times that something similar was discussed here.  Namely, Mark's statement and later retraction that a board member suggested to him that owners might consider a class action suit against Marriott.  I have no idea if your conversation with a board member consisted of the same suggestion, so can't say if it broke the same rules that Mark's did.



The conversation was more of owner to owner with concern that a lot of information is being kept from the owners for obvious reasons.No mention of legal action was mentioned.
Tug was suggested as a source of information.
I did not take sides completely.
I researched on my own by going on Aruba history sites,talking to owners,talking to OC staff,reading TUG and other sites.
I have to commend the board member in allowing me to research on my own before coming to any conclusion.

I see both sides.I have always marched to the beat of a different drum. So having to uphold to bylaws to the nth degree where one could be blinded as to the possibility of them being obstructive to the seeking of truth goes against my grain.

I would love to see every owner with the information the group has along with that of MVCI and the BOD.

As one can see from the voter turn out,the status quo probably will not change but the opportunity was given to every owner to appreciate that their co-owners have tried to share a concern that affects them.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> The conversation was more of owner to owner with concern that a lot of information is being kept from the owners for obvious reasons.No mention of legal action was mentioned.
> Tug was suggested as a source of information.
> I did not take sides completely.
> I researched on my own by going on Aruba history sites,talking to owners,talking to OC staff,reading TUG and other sites.
> I have to commend the board member in allowing me to research on my own before coming to any conclusion.
> 
> I see both sides.I have always marched to the beat of a different drum. So having to uphold to bylaws to the nth degree where one could be blinded as to the possibility of them being obstructive to the seeking of truth goes against my grain.
> 
> I would love to see every owner with the information the group has along with that of MVCI and the BOD.
> 
> As one can see from the voter turn out,the status quo probably will not change but the opportunity was given to every owner to appreciate that their co-owners have tried to share a concern that affects them.



This actually is part of the problem. Allan was an elected member of the AOC board. He has every right to express his opinion in the minutes of the board. If he feels the board minutes are not an accurate account of the board meeting, he has every right to not approve those minutes. I have not seen any report that this ever occurred.

However once the board makes a decision, he has a fiduciary responsibility to the membership as a whole to support that decision if it was a legal use of their power.  Just because a board member disagrees with a decision of the board, their passion does not grant them license to encourage third-party legal challenges to that decision. Doing so violates their fiduciary responsibility  they incur as a member of the board. If he passionately felt that decision was improper, at that point he should have resigned in protest. Then he could have freely opposed that decision. It was a conflict for him to remain on the board while encouraging efforts to challenge the decision of the board.

This is a fundamental distinction between this situation and every other owner crusade on TUG - most of which I support.


----------



## SueDonJ

Dean said:


> I disagree, I see your post as an attack on Sue's ethics.  No one is going to post if they have no interest at all.  Had you pointed out that it COULD affect her position, she could have responded but you stated emphatically that that was her motive, implying her only or main motive  I have interest simply due it it being Marriott.  While I don't own Marriott stock, I have a number of Marriott weeks.  A quote that I think sums it up is that "the middle is to the right of the left".



Dean, I sort of understood where Modo was coming from, but still appreciate that you're pointing out an important distinction here in my defense.  Thanks.  I'll add to it to say that I'm only very recently a piddling shareholder, so it can't be used as a motive for Modo to dismiss everything I've contributed to this thread.  (And if anybody must know, it was the tanked economy that convinced me to put a few bucks into what I consider two strong companies in the hospitality industry - Marriott and Disney - in the hope that I'll make a few more when the economy rebounds.) 

And Modo, my shareholder status really does mean next to nothing as far as my understanding of Marriott's actions throughout this situation.  Except for a hope that they make smart business decisions, I'm far more invested in how this will all impact MVCI and its owners than the parent company.



Dean said:


> As I've said before, there is no real measure to determine if you get what you want in transparency unless time dictates another similar event to compare.  As for soliciting, I would not expect Marriott to allow any and even if technically legal, I would expect them to attempt to stop it.  Just like they should not allow a magazine with a negative add to be distributed.



If MAOC's governing docs contain a solicitation provision similar to SurfWatch's, solicitation is allowed if written permission is obtained.  Is it possible that the Aruban government and the resort industry have reached a mutual agreement to allow certain solicitations within the resorts, knowing that tourism provides the most jobs to Arubans?  I think that's a possibility, and it could explain why Marriott selectively applies the provision.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> The conversation was more of owner to owner with concern that a lot of information is being kept from the owners for obvious reasons.No mention of legal action was mentioned.
> Tug was suggested as a source of information.
> I did not take sides completely.
> I researched on my own by going on Aruba history sites,talking to owners,talking to OC staff,reading TUG and other sites.
> I have to commend the board member in allowing me to research on my own before coming to any conclusion.
> 
> I see both sides.I have always marched to the beat of a different drum. So having to uphold to bylaws to the nth degree where one could be blinded as to the possibility of them being obstructive to the seeking of truth goes against my grain.
> 
> I would love to see every owner with the information the group has along with that of MVCI and the BOD.
> 
> As one can see from the voter turn out,the status quo probably will not change but the opportunity was given to every owner to appreciate that their co-owners have tried to share a concern that affects them.



There is one obvious avenue still open to the "concerned owners" group to get whatever information they're holding distributed to the entire MAOC ownership, and it's the one that was suggested to Mark which appears to be the reason he began this thread.

Challenge Marriott in a court proceeding.

It's as simple as that.  IF whatever information you're holding is as damaging as you contend, if it's something that would convince every MAOC owner to rightfully demand concessions from Marriott as you allege, then get it out in the open in the most public way possible.  Hire a competent attorney to organize and act on the owners' behalf, and force Marriott to respond.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> There is one obvious avenue still open to the "concerned owners" group to get whatever information they're holding distributed to the entire MAOC ownership, and it's the one that was suggested to Mark which appears to be the reason he began this thread.
> 
> Challenge Marriott in a court proceeding.
> 
> It's as simple as that.  IF whatever information you're holding is as damaging as you contend, if it's something that would convince every MAOC owner to rightfully demand concessions from Marriott as you allege, then get it out in the open in the most public way possible.  Hire a competent attorney to organize and act on the owners' behalf, and force Marriott to respond.



From your mouth to "you know who" up there.It should be so easy.
And by the way I personally do not hold damaging information,just so you know.
I would like nothing more than to have this whole issue/s settled.
My main concern on the beach should be what I'll be drinking that day and not why my MFs went up.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> From your mouth to "you know who" up there.It should be so easy.
> And by the way I personally do not hold damaging information,just so you know.
> I would like nothing more than to have this whole issue/s settled.
> My main concern on the beach should be what I'll be drinking that day and not why my MFs went up.



Of course I shouldn't have said "simple," although that's not quite the same as "easy" in this case.  No lawsuit is ever easy but it might be simply the only avenue still open.

I'm a little confused, Modo.  I thought you joined the "concerned owners" website and by doing so, have access to the damaging information that some members have claimed they have against Marriott; and, that you've found things in your searches that make you think the "concerned owners" group are correct in their allegations that Marriott has committed wrongdoing; and, finally, that if all MAOC owners had the same knowledge you do, they would have some understanding, if not total support, for the actions the group has taken.  No?

I certainly understand about sitting on the beach and worrying about nothing significant - that's what we all want.  Here's hoping that happens for you sooner rather than later.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> Of course I shouldn't have said "simple," although that's not quite the same as "easy" in this case.  No lawsuit is ever easy but it might be simply the only avenue still open.
> 
> I'm a little confused, Modo.  I thought you joined the "concerned owners" website and by doing so, have access to the damaging information that some members have claimed they have against Marriott; and, that you've found things in your searches that make you think the "concerned owners" group are correct in their allegations that Marriott has committed wrongdoing; and, finally, that if all MAOC owners had the same knowledge you do, they would have some understanding, if not total support, for the actions the group has taken.  No?
> 
> I certainly understand about sitting on the beach and worrying about nothing significant - that's what we all want.  Here's hoping that happens for you sooner rather than later.



The information on the site is very similar to what they have posted here.
I am not knowledgable about any other secret info if that's what you mean.
Going onto the Aruba history site basically sets up a picture in my head of a rusty shell that was going to be destroyed.So there is some concern there.
The allegations as to the leaks and mold situation is of merit as far as I can see.
I joined because being an owner I want to hear the concerns.
I do find the concerns to hold merit.
I find that by Marriott placing obstacles, it tweaks my interest even more.
I want an open discussion to take place to put everything on the table.
And by signing up with the group i do not get solicited nor brainwashed and can opt out whenever I want.
There's some real good people on the group who really care about our resort.
Don't discount that.


----------



## ecwinch

Modo,

I do not think anyone has discounted that. Good people can make bad decisions and be mislead.

Just as no one has disputed the construction history of the OC. But I have never understood how you go from MVCI taking over a partially completed superstructure, to that is why the windows or the roof leaks. They are completely different components. The leaky windows certainly are not a by-product of that fact that the super-structure sat vacant for 5 years - the windows were not in place then. And as noted on their web-site, the roof was restored and repaired.

And as I read the MVCI letter where they explain the basis for their contribution to the roof, it seems that they are acknowledging that the roof is defective. And since the roof contractor is no longer in business, they are stepping in and fulfilling that parties obligation to fix the problem.  

But since the beginning of this thread, the message has been "MVCI knowingly sold us a defective building. They should give us our money back. Who wants to join me in a class action suit?". 



			
				marksue said:
			
		

> I have been in touch with the board and have gotten the details of what is taking place. A board member said to me if you find a lawyer who would like to take on a class action suit there would be many people who would be willing to be part of the suit.



The logic is just not well-reasoned. For me, this is when the train went off the track.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> The information on the site is very similar to what they have posted here.
> I am not knowledgable about any other secret info if that's what you mean.
> Going onto the Aruba history site basically sets up a picture in my head of a rusty shell that was going to be destroyed.So there is some concern there.
> The allegations as to the leaks and mold situation is of merit as far as I can see.
> I joined because being an owner I want to hear the concerns.
> I do find the concerns to hold merit.
> I find that by Marriott placing obstacles, it tweaks my interest even more.
> I want an open discussion to take place to put everything on the table.
> And by signing up with the group i do not get solicited nor brainwashed and can opt out whenever I want.
> There's some real good people on the group who really care about our resort.
> Don't discount that.



I don't discount that at all, Modo, just as I expect you don't discount that there are really good people who happen to disagree with you about the specifics at your resort, but still care about the resort and/or MVCI in general.

I must admit, I'm a little surprised at you saying that in general the info on the site is similar to what's in this thread.  It's certainly understandable that some owners might like the site more than this thread because it offers the info without the criticisms that are found here. 

But you must admit that LoveAruba's various plugs here for the site are a bit misleading in that they suggest that something more definitive can be found there.  That's my impression, anyway, based on things like the latest plug which implies that "the entire story" can only be found there.


----------



## lovearuba

*criticisms*



SueDonJ said:


> I don't discount that at all, Modo, just as I expect you don't discount that there are really good people who happen to disagree with you about the specifics at your resort, but still care about the resort and/or MVCI in general.
> 
> I must admit, I'm a little surprised at you saying that in general the info on the site is similar to what's in this thread. It's certainly understandable that some owners might like the site more than this thread because it offers the info without the criticisms that are found here.
> 
> But you must admit that LoveAruba's various plugs here for the site are a bit misleading in that they suggest that something more definitive can be found there. That's my impression, anyway, based on things like the latest plug which implies that "the entire story" can only be found there.


 
Sue there are no restrictions on our site preventing folks from disagreeing or criticizing any of the comments of others.  Our site also provides updates and other information that owners are interested in that are not as readily available here.  It is dedicated to owners so the information is specific to the ocean club, trip reports, restaurant tips, etc.  Yes some of that stuff can be found in other websites but this site is dedicated to the ocean club.  I know you find issue with the fact we ask owners to agree to the terms before giving them access and you are entitled to that belief but it is not a problem for the folks that have registered. To remove yourself from the site is simple. I'm not going to respond to your challenge on the entire story. The issue is for the owners to decide and if after reading what is there an owner disagrees they can stop participating. The numbers are not declining after people register, I dont track the ones that delete there accounts but the numbers are growing so I would venture to guess that they are satisfied with the purpose of the site.


----------



## modoaruba

Don't mistake what I have posted before that the group's site is no different than this site regarding information.
Lovearuba is correct in what they state.
I meant in prior post that nothing earth shattering has yet happened that was not posted here.
There is however a huge gathering of various types of information available that owners will be interested in if they only knew was available to them.


----------



## DMSTWO

*Aruba Ocean Club (roof) - Real Effect on Resale purchase*

There are a tremendous number of postings in this forum related to the roof problems and how people perceive they are being treated by Marriott.

All that aside, I read into the threads that this should be a onetime issue that once resolved should return the resort to expected Marriott TS standards.

Assuming that is the case, can anybody offer an  insight into what the resultant impact of the roof issue/replacement assessments would be on a resale purchaser if they were to buy this spring/early summer?

Any outstanding or expected roof repair assessments? any pending or on-going routine assessments?  what are 2010 MFs, etc.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.


----------



## marksue

There is another assesment in 2010.  That should hopefully be the last but with Marriott now tell the board the cost of the facade has increased I wouldnt be surprised if there is another one.

Personaly I would not buy a Marriott timeshare.  The cost to rent one for a week is less than the cost of the annual MF.


----------



## marksue

*Sands of Kahana Concerned owners prevail in court*

SOK Vacaton Club
December 2009
Monday December 7, 2009 was a great day for all of us.  SOK, whole unit owner, Bill Vinson's lawsuit to get the roster of SOK owners so it would be available to all owners, timeshare and whole unit alike, went to a hearing. The judge not only agreed with our attorney he even awarded attorneys fees.  This is huge for us. We are no longer going to be in a stranglehold by CRI/CRM and their tightly controlled Board of Directors.  
We do not know yet exactly how we will proceed at this very moment. We will be conferring with the whole owners and our attorney. He did say that it could take a few weeks to bring everything about. As soon as we have the list, we will be sending out a letter to everyone outlining what our opportunities are. 
In August and September a new real estate LLC and a new management LLC was applied for and granted in Hawaii: Somerset LLC, real estate managers are listed as Marcus Baricuattro (the president of CRI) and Carl Hardin (VP of CRI and former owner of Heritage Properties, the management company that failed to properly manage our timeshare, caused us an assessment to redecorate all the timeshare units and was fired by the Board—he, however, went to work for CRI). The new management company is Somerset Management LLC and the managers listed are Richard Rodriguez (current manager of CRM) and Hideko Sato (Carl Hardin's wife). 
We finally have discovered the information to stand up and say “enough is enough”. We hope the state will stand behind us now that this judgment has come down through the courts. 
We will continue to keep you informed.


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> SOK Vacaton Club
> December 2009
> Monday December 7, 2009 was a great day for all of us.  SOK, whole unit owner, Bill Vinson's lawsuit to get the roster of SOK owners so it would be available to all owners, timeshare and whole unit alike, went to a hearing. The judge not only agreed with our attorney he even awarded attorneys fees.  This is huge for us. We are no longer going to be in a stranglehold by CRI/CRM and their tightly controlled Board of Directors.
> We do not know yet exactly how we will proceed at this very moment. We will be conferring with the whole owners and our attorney. He did say that it could take a few weeks to bring everything about. As soon as we have the list, we will be sending out a letter to everyone outlining what our opportunities are.
> In August and September a new real estate LLC and a new management LLC was applied for and granted in Hawaii: Somerset LLC, real estate managers are listed as Marcus Baricuattro (the president of CRI) and Carl Hardin (VP of CRI and former owner of Heritage Properties, the management company that failed to properly manage our timeshare, caused us an assessment to redecorate all the timeshare units and was fired by the Board—he, however, went to work for CRI). The new management company is Somerset Management LLC and the managers listed are Richard Rodriguez (current manager of CRM) and Hideko Sato (Carl Hardin's wife).
> We finally have discovered the information to stand up and say “enough is enough”. We hope the state will stand behind us now that this judgment has come down through the courts.
> We will continue to keep you informed.


Did you read the articles in the last episode of Timesharing Today related to the same matter?


----------



## lovearuba

*loyalty*



Dean said:


> Did you read the articles in the last episode of Timesharing Today related to the same matter?


 
and who would have thought when we bought the timeshares that we would understand these actions...


----------



## ecwinch

So what exactly are the goals of the Concerned Owners Group now?


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> and who would have thought when we bought the timeshares that we would understand these actions...


I can't speak for you but I considered these and many other related risks prior to buying my first timeshare (DVC) in 1994.  I actually had conversation with them prior to buying (resale) and shortly after about control of the BOD.  This is esp an issue for DVC as they retain complete control even after the resort is sold out.  You actually sign over your voting rights to them for all but issues that negatively affect the membership as a whole, of course they have a say in what those issues are.

To me, any timeshare is essentially a vote of confidence in that system.  So I expect the worst and hope for the best.  Still, I wouldn't want any of them to go under or worse.


----------



## marksue

*Mr Marriott in Aruba*

Mr Marriott is scheduled to be in Aruba next week to discuss the Ritz Carlton with officials.  If there are any owners who will be there at that time you may want to see if you can get his attention to discuss what is occuring at the Ocean Club and why he or his office has not responded to owners who have written directly to him.

I am trying to find out the exact day and time he will be there.  If you are there, if you see an effort to get everything in tip top shape youwill know he will be there that day or the next.

It would be great if owners could get some time with him and let him hear the concerns.


----------



## marksue

*Legal proof the AOC Board and MVCI has lied to the owners*

Dear Aruba Ocean Club Owners -  I want to inform you that our numbers continue to grow as owners witness the actions of the AOC Board and Marriott's (MVCI) actions.  The latest tactics at the Special Meeting and the threatening of the Aruba Today Newspaper from distributing on Marriott property unless our Aruba ad was removed is shocking.  What is Mr. Marriott and MVCI official's afraid that we might find out by communicating with each other ? 

I am forwarding you the formal response from the Concerned Owners Aruba Attorney David Kock which clearly provides proof that the Board and MVCI mislead owners and spent owner funds in excess of $100,000, all in an attempt to prevent owner to owner communications.  We presented these comments at the Special Meeting, but were put down by MVCI's hired Parliamentarian and the Boards thru their two attorneys.  

The Board and MVCI had stated to owners that they had been ordered by the Court to hold a special meeting to amend the By Laws.  As you can see from the letter this was not true.  The court did not require MVCI or the Board to hold a special meeting to amend the owner register.  The proposed motion to open up member contact information to the general public was all MVCI and the Board's attempt to misrepresent our request as well as the Court's intention and order, this was used to scare owner's into voting it down and in that they were successful.  

We had asked the Board and MVCI to prove that their statements are true - they cannot.  They should be held responsible and repay the owners back for all the funds spent, then they may think twice before they waste any more funds.  These tactics only make us more optimistic that the court will respond in our favor in May when the hearing is scheduled. 

Please contact me if you have any questions.  Thank you


Allan S. Cohen

===============================================================





Mr Allan Cohen


*


datum:   8 februari 2010 

betreft:               memorandum



Dear sir,



As discussed previously I hereby send you an explanation of the verdict of September 9, 2009 due to uncertainties that have been manifested to you by other concerned owners.



Firstly I must indicate that we never contested the text of the articles of incorporation of the Cooperative Association. We did not claim that these articles should be amended in order to add the mailing and email addresses of all the members to the registry mentioned in the articles of incorporation. This registry as indicated in article 27 of the articles of incorporation is available to inspection to anyone, also non members.



We are of the opinion that the members do not have an interest in third parties accessing their mailing and email addresses. However the same does not apply when a member wants to be able to contact his/her co-members. Currently such a member can only communicate through the Board or Marriott, whereby he will have no guarantee that such communiques will always be passed on and/or not be screened. Furthermore such means of communication is not desirable when the content or purpose thereof pertains to issues related to Marriott and/or the Board.



It is not in the spirit of a cooperative association to limit in any way the communication between the members. This is the intention of the lawsuit, not to amend the articles of incorporation. Nothing in the law prohibits the association to make available only to its members the mailing and email addresses of all members. 



The ruling of September 9, 2009 did not contain an order to the association to present to the members the option to amend the articles of incorporation. The judge indicated:





‘Plaintiff requests –easily said- the (email)addresses of his co-members so that he can inform them en eventually discuss with them about a possible claim of the AOC against Marriott. AOC indicates that this request must first be made on the yearly general members meeting. AOC is willing to put this theme on the agenda. 



The court is of the opinion that the point of departure should be that conflicts within an association must first be resolved by means of the possibilities indicated by the articles of incorporation. In this case plaintiff is proceeding against the denial of the board of the association to grant him the actual addresses of the co-members. The general meeting of members can, as the highest entity within the association, pronounce itself hereupon. There are no fact or circumstances presented that would imply that de general meeting of members, of which the court assumes that on the basis of the articles of incorporation and the last held meeting will be held in March 2010, cannot be awaited.’





It must be clear that the court did not order the board to hold a meeting suggesting the amendment of the articles of incorporation. The court said that the request of the plaintiff –which is for HIM to get the information of his co-members- should firstly be presented to the general meeting of members. The board decided to present an amendment of the articles of incorporation which would make the mailing and email addresses available to anyone which would ask to look into the register. Not only did the board present something other than recommended –not ordered- by the court but the option chosen by the board scared many members as their private (mailing and email) information could be accessed.



In our opinion nothing in Aruba law opposes granting a member the mailing and email addresses of his co-members. AOC/Marriott makes such only possible by the amendment of the register mentioned in the articles of incorporation. However such is not a conditio sine qua non. 



Hoogachtend,









mr David G. Kock*


----------



## timeos2

*Nothing groundbreaking*



marksue said:


> I am forwarding you the formal response from the Concerned Owners Aruba Attorney David Kock which clearly provides proof that the Board and MVCI mislead owners and spent owner funds in excess of $100,000, all in an attempt to prevent owner to owner communications.  We presented these comments at the Special Meeting, but were put down by MVCI's hired Parliamentarian and the Boards thru their two attorneys.



Just to be clear this is in no way "proof" of anything stated, but merely represents one attorney's view. It can, and apparently has, been challenged by other views. Nothing in the posting or the letter is necessarily correct or incorrect, but rather subject to interpretation and possible additional legal wrangling.  And certainly no demand (or even mere request) for money to be paid or returned or whatever is binding on anyone involved.  This is merely another volley in the game and makes no dramatic new inroads toward settling or continuing this process.  As usual it does make interesting reading to help understand one sides view.


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> Dear Aruba Ocean Club Owners -  I want to inform you that our numbers continue to grow as owners witness the actions of the AOC Board and Marriott's (MVCI) actions.  The latest tactics at the Special Meeting and the threatening of the Aruba Today Newspaper from distributing on Marriott property unless our Aruba ad was removed is shocking.  What is Mr. Marriott and MVCI official's afraid that we might find out by communicating with each other ?
> 
> I am forwarding you the formal response from the Concerned Owners Aruba Attorney David Kock which clearly provides proof that the Board and MVCI mislead owners and spent owner funds in excess of $100,000, all in an attempt to prevent owner to owner communications.  We presented these comments at the Special Meeting, but were put down by MVCI's hired Parliamentarian and the Boards thru their two attorneys.
> 
> The Board and MVCI had stated to owners that they had been ordered by the Court to hold a special meeting to amend the By Laws.  As you can see from the letter this was not true.  The court did not require MVCI or the Board to hold a special meeting to amend the owner register.  The proposed motion to open up member contact information to the general public was all MVCI and the Board's attempt to misrepresent our request as well as the Court's intention and order, this was used to scare owner's into voting it down and in that they were successful.
> 
> We had asked the Board and MVCI to prove that their statements are true - they cannot.  They should be held responsible and repay the owners back for all the funds spent, then they may think twice before they waste any more funds.  These tactics only make us more optimistic that the court will respond in our favor in May when the hearing is scheduled.
> 
> Please contact me if you have any questions.  Thank you
> 
> 
> Allan S. Cohen
> 
> ===============================================================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Allan Cohen
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> datum:   8 februari 2010
> 
> betreft:               memorandum
> 
> 
> 
> Dear sir,
> 
> 
> 
> As discussed previously I hereby send you an explanation of the verdict of September 9, 2009 due to uncertainties that have been manifested to you by other concerned owners.
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly I must indicate that we never contested the text of the articles of incorporation of the Cooperative Association. We did not claim that these articles should be amended in order to add the mailing and email addresses of all the members to the registry mentioned in the articles of incorporation. This registry as indicated in article 27 of the articles of incorporation is available to inspection to anyone, also non members.
> 
> 
> 
> We are of the opinion that the members do not have an interest in third parties accessing their mailing and email addresses. However the same does not apply when a member wants to be able to contact his/her co-members. Currently such a member can only communicate through the Board or Marriott, whereby he will have no guarantee that such communiques will always be passed on and/or not be screened. Furthermore such means of communication is not desirable when the content or purpose thereof pertains to issues related to Marriott and/or the Board.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not in the spirit of a cooperative association to limit in any way the communication between the members. This is the intention of the lawsuit, not to amend the articles of incorporation. Nothing in the law prohibits the association to make available only to its members the mailing and email addresses of all members.
> 
> 
> 
> The ruling of September 9, 2009 did not contain an order to the association to present to the members the option to amend the articles of incorporation. The judge indicated:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Plaintiff requests –easily said- the (email)addresses of his co-members so that he can inform them en eventually discuss with them about a possible claim of the AOC against Marriott. AOC indicates that this request must first be made on the yearly general members meeting. AOC is willing to put this theme on the agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> The court is of the opinion that the point of departure should be that conflicts within an association must first be resolved by means of the possibilities indicated by the articles of incorporation. In this case plaintiff is proceeding against the denial of the board of the association to grant him the actual addresses of the co-members. The general meeting of members can, as the highest entity within the association, pronounce itself hereupon. There are no fact or circumstances presented that would imply that de general meeting of members, of which the court assumes that on the basis of the articles of incorporation and the last held meeting will be held in March 2010, cannot be awaited.’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must be clear that the court did not order the board to hold a meeting suggesting the amendment of the articles of incorporation. The court said that the request of the plaintiff –which is for HIM to get the information of his co-members- should firstly be presented to the general meeting of members. The board decided to present an amendment of the articles of incorporation which would make the mailing and email addresses available to anyone which would ask to look into the register. Not only did the board present something other than recommended –not ordered- by the court but the option chosen by the board scared many members as their private (mailing and email) information could be accessed.
> 
> 
> 
> In our opinion nothing in Aruba law opposes granting a member the mailing and email addresses of his co-members. AOC/Marriott makes such only possible by the amendment of the register mentioned in the articles of incorporation. However such is not a conditio sine qua non.
> 
> 
> 
> Hoogachtend,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mr David G. Kock*


I agree there is no proof.  I would think the court statements and directions themselves would be the best information to interpret this situation, the actual words of the court would be what interests me, not the words of a lawyer who has a vested interest in only providing one side of the story.  There are many actions the courts could have taken that would have triggered the need for such action.  Put another way, there are other ways to "force" the actions stated other than saying you must do so.  I would think that MVCI and the BOD will take the actions necessary and available to them to protect the positions they have already taken, as they should.  As I stated previously, once the info is out, it is out and impossible to control.  Affirming to the BOD that one will only use the info in a certain way is definitely not enough protection that the owners info will not be release.  Indications on this thread already indicate that the info was likely taken and used inappropriately, possibly illegally, to contact owners and to use as verification of ownership.


----------



## Clemson Fan

Just out of curiosity, has this thread set the record for the longest ever thread on TUG?


----------



## ecwinch

_Plaintiff requests –easily said- the (email)addresses of his co-members so that he can inform them en eventually discuss with them about a *possible claim of the AOC against Marriott*. AOC indicates that this request must first be made on the yearly general members meeting. AOC is willing to put this theme on the agenda._

I thought this was no longer about pursuing a lawsuit? Somebody should let the judge know that.

And dovetailing into the other comments, this is your lawyers perspective. Of course it is going to present the most favorable view of the facts. Likewise, the BoD would probably say "we wanted to put this issue to the members as soon as possible to avoid further dissension or litigation on the matter".

And why would that be a bad thing? The bottom line is that you are attempting to distance yourself from the indisputable fact that your actions are resulting in the expenditure of funds that are better spent on the resort. 

For if the measure had passed, I doubt you would have questioned the merit of the special meeting.


----------



## modoaruba

marksue said:


> Mr Marriott is scheduled to be in Aruba next week to discuss the Ritz Carlton with officials.  If there are any owners who will be there at that time you may want to see if you can get his attention to discuss what is occuring at the Ocean Club and why he or his office has not responded to owners who have written directly to him.
> 
> I am trying to find out the exact day and time he will be there.  If you are there, if you see an effort to get everything in tip top shape youwill know he will be there that day or the next.
> 
> It would be great if owners could get some time with him and let him hear the concerns.



Mark,I'm surprised that the usuall suspects do not mention that it is against some bylaws to approach Mr. Marriott or some such other nonesense.
Happy Valentines Day.


----------



## marksue

Maybe one of them is Mr Marriott .  oops should I have said that .  jk.....


----------



## SueDonJ

I thought we determined about fifty-thirteen pages back that Mr. Marriott IS here in this thread playing the Up Your Post Count game?   

I wouldn't think it would be against the bylaws to approach him if he's on property, but I wouldn't expect it to be any more useful than some of the other things that have been done to try to get your point across.  Do you honestly believe that he isn't aware of every criticism that's been made by the "concerned owners" group, as well as every reaction/response from any Marriott employee?  You make him sound like a doddering old man who doesn't know who is running the store!  It's much more likely that he's signed off on the legal department's "hands off, only correct legal procedures will elicit a response" directive.


----------



## modoaruba

I agree that approaching Mr. Marriott would solve absolutely nothing even if the media was there.Would be fun to see how he would react to the news team. 
Hey, you think that he is put up in the penthouse of the hotel?Great views.

By the way,how much is fifty-thirteen?


----------



## SueDonJ

I think he's probably put up in whichever room of the hotel he chooses, and he probably makes it very worthwhile for whoever is in that room to move.   

Fifty-thirteen is "a whole bunch."  It comes in handy when you're too lazy to go back and count.


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> I think he's probably put up in whichever room of the hotel he chooses, and he probably makes it very worthwhile for whoever is in that room to move.
> 
> Fifty-thirteen is "a whole bunch."  It comes in handy when you're too lazy to go back and count.



"It's good to be king"
I for one would be extremely joyful and full of glee if Mr. Marriott would offer me fifty-thirteen to relinquish my room.


----------



## SueDonJ

:rofl:   You got that right - I'd even volunteer to do his housekeeping!


----------



## modoaruba

SueDonJ said:


> :rofl:   You got that right - I'd even volunteer to do his housekeeping!



Now,don't sell youself short.You're better than that.


----------



## marksue

it has gotten quite here.  Let me see what I can dig up to post   so we can get some verbiage going .


----------



## qlaval

The 2010 2nd Phase Renovation Assessment are now available online.
*Due date 04/01/2010*

$337.30/one-bedroom
$484.25/two-bedroom


----------



## billymach4

marksue said:


> it has gotten quite here.  Let me see what I can dig up to post   so we can get some verbiage going .



You can issue a new theory on how Marriott will make everything right with AOC when their new and improved internal points trading system rolls out on June 1, 2010!

Oh I know......

Marriott will be reinstating ROFR starting with AOC at 60% of full retail. Planned rollout date will be on 04/01/2010.


----------



## SueDonJ

MAOC, points exchange and ROFR.  Wow, I'm impressed, you hit the trifecta of Marriott subjects most likely to devolve into long repetitive argumentative repetitive snarky repetitive threads on TUG.  Oh wait, did I say repetitive?  :hysterical:


----------



## billymach4

We should round up signatures and send them in to TUGBRIAN for a separate forum on MAOC, ROFR, and Marriott internal trading system! 

What a HOOT!


----------



## modoaruba

Been away from this for a while so pardon my ignorance.
What is this new point system about and how does it make better my Marrrriott ownership?
Any time I hear anything new and improved I always ask how much more is it going to cost me or devalue my devalued TS further.
I hope I am wrong so clue me in so I can sleep comfortably tonight.
I can't wait


----------



## Dave M

modoaruba said:


> What is this new point system about and how does it make better my Marrrriott ownership?


See this current thread for the current discussion as to what the new points program might be, assuming it is implemented this summer on schedule. Since Marriott has not announced the program or any details about it, almost everything in the thread is speculation. Please post in that thread if you want more information about the as-yet nonexistent program.


----------



## ecwinch

marksue said:


> it has gotten quite here.  Let me see what I can dig up to post   so we can get some verbiage going .



Just give our viewers at home a status update. Or can that only happen when Allan issues one?


----------



## modoaruba

Dave M said:


> See this current thread for the current discussion as to what the new points program might be, assuming it is implemented this summer on schedule. Since Marriott has not announced the program or any details about it, almost everything in the thread is speculation. Please post in that thread if you want more information about the as-yet nonexistent program.



Thanks Dave.
Wow, long thread.


----------



## Steve A

Received a letter from the Board yesterday. So far cost of litigation has been $100,000.


----------



## rickxylon

Now's the time to stop beating this dead horse, stop wasting everyone's time and save some money.


----------



## lovearuba

*why do you care*



rickxylon said:


> Now's the time to stop beating this dead horse, stop wasting everyone's time and save some money.


 
why would you care and since the concerned owners dont believe the information provided by the board what incentive do we have to drop it.  We did not reopen this thread did we?


----------



## Dave M

lovearuba said:


> We did not reopen this thread did we?


It was reopened by an owner. This thread's title is addressed to all owners - not just to the concerned owners' group.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> why would you care and since the concerned owners dont believe the information provided by the board what incentive do we have to drop it.  We did not reopen this thread did we?



Love,

It should be obvious from their profile why they care. They are concerned owners also, just concerned about a different problem.


----------



## tlwmkw

lovearuba,

rickxylon and Steve A are both listed as owners at the Aruba Ocean Club.

tlwmkw


----------



## lovearuba

*listed and wanting what*



tlwmkw said:


> lovearuba,
> 
> rickxylon and Steve A are both listed as owners at the Aruba Ocean Club.
> 
> tlwmkw


 
Remember that everything that is posted by a person that believes in the cause is challenged relentlessley.  When Marriott publishes information on legal fees, it is taken as truth and people post to complain about the cause asking for justification.  I dont know nor care if the posters own Marriott, there is no validation of that since this site allows anyone and everyone to post to it. I also dont care if the posters believe in the cause.  Just cant understand why they would open up the post again if they really wanted the issue to go away.


----------



## tlwmkw

Lovearuba,

I don't think the two owners who posted are upset about this thread and asking that it go away.  They want to stop the legal pressure on the Ocean Club board that is causing the board to have to spend money to protect themselves.  Why do you doubt that there are legal fees as a result of all this?  Lawyers don't come cheap- 100k is a drop in the bucket if you think in terms of billable hours at $350 an hour.  

tlwmkw


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> Remember that everything that is posted by a person that believes in the cause is challenged relentlessley.  When Marriott publishes information on legal fees, it is taken as truth and people post to complain about the cause asking for justification.  I dont know nor care if the posters own Marriott, there is no validation of that since this site allows anyone and everyone to post to it. I also dont care if the posters believe in the cause.  Just cant understand why they would open up the post again if they really wanted the issue to go away.


I would question the validity of the first statement because I don't think it to be accurate.  Some posted info has been challenged, not relentlessly, certainly not beyond the fervor that it was posted and not inappropriately from what I've seen.  As I've said several times during this thread, not accepting the posted info as gospel is not the same as saying it is incorrect.  I also wouldn't equate this thread going away with the issues going away (either way).  I think it is interesting (and revealing) that you don't care about the views of those who are owners there, or even Marriott owners in general, who do not agree with the stance that some have taken.  I do think it is reasonable to accept the published info of the BOD and Marriott as reliable information as I think they'd have too much to lose to put wrong data in writing purposefully, YMMV.  Frankly, I'm surprised it's only $100K, I'd have expected about $250K at this point and would expect the number to climb over time even if no further action is taken on either side.


----------



## modoaruba

:deadhorse: Is this what you guys were looking for?


----------



## mnabnpos

Has the board shown any proof to any of the owners that they have spent this amount on lawyers?  I personally have not received any proof of these expenses and question the validity.  Maybe this is the beginning of sucking more assessment money (will this be assessment #3 now??) from the owners.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Remember that everything that is posted by a person that believes in the cause is challenged relentlessley.  When Marriott publishes information on legal fees, it is taken as truth and people post to complain about the cause asking for justification.  I dont know nor care if the posters own Marriott, there is no validation of that since this site allows anyone and everyone to post to it. I also dont care if the posters believe in the cause.  Just cant understand why they would open up the post again if they really wanted the issue to go away.



Love,

This is hardly an accurate presentation of the facts. Almost every time that Marriott or the AOC provides information to the owners, Mark posts a line by line rebuttal of every element of the information they provide. 

Why suspect some ulterior motive when a fellow owner makes a post? Just a few posts back, Mark is asking how to encourage more dialog in this thread.

Perhaps the concerned owners want this thread to go away, but for a different reason.


----------



## rickxylon

We love Aruba. We own 2 weeks at the Ocean Club and 1 week at the Surf Club. We do not work for Marriott. We believe we are entitled to express our opinion, even if we don't rant about it. We have followed this issue in this long thread since the beginning and were initially sympathetic to the concerned owners group. At this stage we cannot see any reason for the owner(s) continuing to pursue the law suit and eating up more money from the rest of the owners. 

Please share what can possibly be gained at this stage. Perhaps some of us are missing something or perhaps the 80+% who voted to approve the by-law change have had enough of this litigous behavior, even though some may not be willing to admit that.


----------



## rickxylon

mnabnpos said:


> Has the board shown any proof to any of the owners that they have spent this amount on lawyers?  I personally have not received any proof of these expenses and question the validity.  Maybe this is the beginning of sucking more assessment money (will this be assessment #3 now??) from the owners.



Have you "received any proof" for all the other expenses that are in the budget and therefore "question the validity" of those?


----------



## Steve A

Indeed I am an owner, and a happy one at that. The letter also indicated that Marriott has hired a parliamentarian to take part in the meetings, and that  a very large percentage of owners voting declined to have their names and addresses released to the plaintiffs. Marriott did not cast their votes in this matter.


----------



## tlwmkw

Steve A,

I think you can be sure that what MVCI and your board is telling you is true.  They are under such scrutiny from the concerned owners group that I'm sure they are dotting every i and crossing every t- hence the parliamentarian being at the annual meeting.  They would be foolish to put out anything that isn't verifiably true because they know that all records may be opened in a court of law and examined if a law suit ever occurs.  It sounds like the only things that they are not telling you are confidential issues that have to be kept that way for Marriott business reasons.  The concerned owners are asking for transparency and from my perspective they are getting that to the extent that MVCI and the board can do so.

tlwmkw


----------



## lovearuba

*believe what you want*



tlwmkw said:


> Steve A,
> 
> I think you can be sure that what MVCI and your board is telling you is true. They are under such scrutiny from the concerned owners group that I'm sure they are dotting every i and crossing every t- hence the parliamentarian being at the annual meeting. They would be foolish to put out anything that isn't verifiably true because they know that all records may be opened in a court of law and examined if a law suit ever occurs. It sounds like the only things that they are not telling you are confidential issues that have to be kept that way for Marriott business reasons. The concerned owners are asking for transparency and from my perspective they are getting that to the extent that MVCI and the board can do so.
> 
> tlwmkw


 
Guess I know there is no skepticism on your part because Marriott always tells the truth right?


----------



## mnabnpos

rickxylon said:


> Have you "received any proof" for all the other expenses that are in the budget and therefore "question the validity" of those?



As an owner of 2 weeks at the AOC I should be entitled to view any documents, invoices or correspondences if requested in writing.  Don't you think this is a right as owners to see where our money is going, and, if myself, as an owner who pays maintenance fees and assessment fees should be able to inquire about these expenses?


----------



## mnabnpos

tlwmkw said:


> Steve A,
> 
> I think you can be sure that what MVCI and your board is telling you is true.  They are under such scrutiny from the concerned owners group that I'm sure they are dotting every i and crossing every t- hence the parliamentarian being at the annual meeting.  They would be foolish to put out anything that isn't verifiably true because they know that all records may be opened in a court of law and examined if a law suit ever occurs.  It sounds like the only things that they are not telling you are confidential issues that have to be kept that way for Marriott business reasons.  The concerned owners are asking for transparency and from my perspective they are getting that to the extent that MVCI and the board can do so.
> 
> tlwmkw



I have to disagree, if they are using our owners money to pay for this lawsuit and expect us to pay in the future then we should be entitled to view all the courts documents and expenses incurred unless Aruba law is different than US law as far as confidentiality goes.


----------



## rickxylon

lovearuba said:


> Guess I know there is no skepticism on your part because Marriott always tells the truth right?


And you always tell the truth, right?


----------



## rickxylon

mnabnpos said:


> I have to disagree, if they are using our owners money to pay for this lawsuit and expect us to pay in the future then we should be entitled to view all the courts documents and expenses incurred unless Aruba law is different than US law as far as confidentiality goes.



If the suit is dropped, no more money would be needed by Marriott to defend themselves. What is the purpose of this lawsuit and why is it continuing?


----------



## Dean

mnabnpos said:


> As an owner of 2 weeks at the AOC I should be entitled to view any documents, invoices or correspondences if requested in writing.  Don't you think this is a right as owners to see where our money is going, and, if myself, as an owner who pays maintenance fees and assessment fees should be able to inquire about these expenses?


I can't speak to Aruban law but what I understand of FL law would require they show you requested items directly from the resort but it'd have to be in person. Indirect items including contracts with Marriott rather than the resort itself would not be included.



lovearuba said:


> Guess I know there is no skepticism on your part because Marriott always tells the truth right?


Wasn't a large part of this process to prove whether Marriott was honest or not in selling the resort.  I was under the impression that certain parties were going to prove they were not in the courts, what happened?



modoaruba said:


> :deadhorse: Is this what you guys were looking for?


No dead horse as of yet.  Too many unanswered questions on both sides including the accusation that the owners list may have been stolen and/or used inappropriately.


----------



## modoaruba

Dean,
I was just trying to have the right icon posted when pertaining to the dead animal in a previous post.This-:deadhorse:not this .
Just being politically correct.We don't want to make this into another issue 
Dotting those I's and crossing them T's


----------



## Dave M

mnabnpos said:


> Has the board shown any proof to any of the owners that they have spent this amount on lawyers?


The "proof" will become available. Like most - if not all - Marriott timeshare resorts, the financial statements for AOC are audited each year by independent CPAs (or chartered accountants or accounting professionals of a similar profession, depending on the country). In AOC's case, the financials are audited by Pricewaterhouse Coopers, one of the four largest and most respected CPA firms in the world. The 2008 audit report is on the AOC owner's site and the 2009 report will likely be added to the site when the audit is complete, discussed with the board and released for owner review.

That audit report, although it won't address any expenditures as small as $100,000, will be the evidence that the financial statements are not misleading. Could the audit report be wrong? Sure. Auditors make errors. But such errors are extremely rare. And when auditors do make errors, it often costs them many millions of $$. Thus, they take their responsibility very seriously.


----------



## ecwinch

But Marriott determines who the auditor is. With all the resorts that MVCI has them audit, and corporate business that Marriott throws their way, do you really think that Price Waterhouse is independent? Did we not learn anything from Enron? 

 I mean this is a corporation that has foisted off a defective and unsafe building on unsuspecting owners.


----------



## Dave M

Yes, PW is independent. And, yes, there was a lot learned from the Enron case. That's why the CPA profession and a regulatory body have enacted strict controls, oversight and independent audits of auditors to ensure that the credibility of the profession is at the highest level possible. Partners and employees of  an auditing firm that claim to be independent and aren't can easily be the subject of long jail terms, as has been demonstrated on several occasions in recent years. 

I stated above that auditors, just like the rest of us, make mistakes. When they do, it's usually a mistake of omission, a task they should have performed based on the circumstances - and didn't. That's why it can get very expensive - even a threat to their very existence (e.g., for Arthur Andersen) - when auditors make mistakes.

Short of having the opportunity to audit the financial records yourself, an opportunity you won't get, that audit report is the proof of financial reliability that owners (and corporate shareholders) get when there are audited financial statements. The record for independent auditors is relatively stellar when you consider the thousands of companies that are audited every year.

Incidentally, Pricewaterhouse doesn't audit all of the Marriott resorts. Those audits are spread out among a variety of firms - for the very reason that you accused Marriott of. Further, Pricewaterhouse is not even the firm that audits Marriott! That audit, the big bucks work, is performed by Ernst & Young.


----------



## lovearuba

*Generally speaking*



Dave M said:


> Yes, PW is independent. And, yes, there was a lot learned from the Enron case. That's why the CPA profession and a regulatory body have enacted strict controls, oversight and independent audits of auditors to ensure that the credibility of the profession is at the highest level possible. Partners and employees of an auditing firm that claim to be independent and aren't can easily be the subject of long jail terms, as has been demonstrated on several occasions in recent years.
> 
> I stated above that auditors, just like the rest of us, make mistakes. When they do, it's usually a mistake of omission, a task they should have performed based on the circumstances - and didn't. That's why it can get very expensive - even a threat to their very existence (e.g., for Arthur Andersen) - when auditors make mistakes.
> 
> Short of having the opportunity to audit the financial records yourself, an opportunity you won't get, that audit report is the proof of financial reliability that owners (and corporate shareholders) get when there are audited financial statements. The record for independent auditors is relatively stellar when you consider the thousands of companies that are audited every year.
> 
> Incidentally, Pricewaterhouse doesn't audit all of the Marriott resorts. Those audits are spread out among a variety of firms - for the very reason that you accused Marriott of. Further, Pricewaterhouse is not even the firm that audits Marriott! That audit, the big bucks work, is performed by Ernst & Young.


 
Generally speaking, and fair statements and in their opinion.  There is a lot left out of audit reports and the scope areas are generally selected by the auditee.  I too am in an auditing field and have worked with all of the top 4 firms.  I do believe most auditors do their best to be independent but there are always exceptions, Enron, Worldcom.  This is why we are all burdened with Sarbanes Oxely and Model Audit Rules.  I wont mention firms names but could easily find situations where the auditor for a company did not find issues that I later found by having another firm perform the same procedures and the results were very different.


----------



## tlwmkw

Lovearuba,

If you really believe this then why doesn't the concerned owners group offer to pay for a separate, independent audit?  This would not add to the costs of other owners and might (though you would probably say that MVCI had influenced whoever you hired) satisfy you.  I still stand by my statement that Marriott is being very careful and going by the book, and yes that will cost the board at the AOC.  That is standard policy for any company with a threat of a lawsuit, they make sure that anything that could be scrutinized in discovery for a suit is done following all corporate rules.  The problem is that many owners want to keep the resort with Marriott and up to Marriott standards.  We have seen this on this thread when some owners have expressed their non-support for your cause.  In these situations the majority rules and it looks like most of the owners there just want to move on and let this become an unpleasant memory.  

My understanding is that the renovations have been done and that the resort looks good.  Your goals now should be to keep it that way and to make sure that money is set aside from the maint fees to allow for future renos and avoid any more special assessments.

just my opinion and I'm sure you won't agree, but good luck anyway,

tlwmkw


----------



## rickxylon

Very well said. I couldn't agree with you more. Time to move on and enjoy life as well as save everyone money and frustration.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> Dean,
> I was just trying to have the right icon posted when pertaining to the dead animal in a previous post.This-:deadhorse:not this .
> Just being politically correct.We don't want to make this into another issue
> Dotting those I's and crossing them T's


Actually I think there ARE some unanswered questions that deserve answers.  The likely theft and inappropriate use of the owners list would definitely be my top concern were I an owner there, much above the $$$ involved and any concerns for Marriott dishonesty in the sales process.  Also, as I stated much earlier in this thread, lack of proof and completion of the legal action is essentially a vote in favor of Marriott.


----------



## mnabnpos

Dave M said:


> Yes, PW is independent. And, yes, there was a lot learned from the Enron case. That's why the CPA profession and a regulatory body have enacted strict controls, oversight and independent audits of auditors to ensure that the credibility of the profession is at the highest level possible. Partners and employees of  an auditing firm that claim to be independent and aren't can easily be the subject of long jail terms, as has been demonstrated on several occasions in recent years.
> 
> I stated above that auditors, just like the rest of us, make mistakes. When they do, it's usually a mistake of omission, a task they should have performed based on the circumstances - and didn't. That's why it can get very expensive - even a threat to their very existence (e.g., for Arthur Andersen) - when auditors make mistakes.
> 
> Short of having the opportunity to audit the financial records yourself, an opportunity you won't get, that audit report is the proof of financial reliability that owners (and corporate shareholders) get when there are audited financial statements. The record for independent auditors is relatively stellar when you consider the thousands of companies that are audited every year.
> 
> Incidentally, Pricewaterhouse doesn't audit all of the Marriott resorts. Those audits are spread out among a variety of firms - for the very reason that you accused Marriott of. Further, Pricewaterhouse is not even the firm that audits Marriott! That audit, the big bucks work, is performed by Ernst & Young.



Dave, Eric, Dean and Love, Thank you for clarifying some things.  I don't know if I am considered a concerned owner but I would just like some answers as to where all this money that we are shelling out now and possibly in the future are going.   Maybe my thoughts will change when I visit the OC this summer and see the upgrades in person.  I just hope that they are not like the gaudy renovations that were made to the Marriott Resort next door.  From the pictures I've seen online the AOC upgrades look very nice.  

I received the notice from the AOC BOD and what concerns me is the line that states:  "Up to this point, over $100,000 has been spent on legal defense costs. Unfortunately, the Association's legal defense costs will continue to rise until the conclusion of these legal proceedings."  It also states both lawsuits were filed specifically against the AOC Cooperative Association - no other parties were listed as codefendents.  If this is the case where is this $100K coming from to pay for these legal defenses?  It doesn't sound as though Marriott is involved in this lawsuit.

Rickxylon,  I absolutely agree with you - What is the purpose of this lawsuit and why is it continuing?  As I read in the AOC BOD letter that there are two lawsuits - one is involving access to our personal information but what is the other?  

Also, I don't want to keep incurring anymore additional expenses other than the regular fees I'm supposed to be paying for my timeshares (maintenance, reserve and now utilities).  I think we have had enough of these assessments.  If these assessments continue then I believe there is some mismanagement and misallocation of funds going on with the current AOC BOD.  Therefore, maybe Mr. Knox and the rest of the board should step down and let us try and get some folks in there that are more qualified and competent.  After reading this forum and understanding more of what has been going on I am becoming more distrustful of this current AOC BOD.  I am one of the first timeshare pre-construction purchasers of the AOC (over 12 years now) and these problems NEVER happened until this board was elected.  Just my personal thoughts and opinion.


----------



## SueDonJ

Does all this mean that lawsuits have actually been filed to get the list of owners' contact info, because the majority of the owners did not vote to change the current provision?  It's confusing because there's been no mention at all of lawsuits actually being filed to this point, and the last time the board mentioned legal fees they were only associated with the costs for Marriott and MAOC to correctly/legally respond to challenges made by the "concerned owners" group.  I would think that if things are now progressing through the Court system (rather than through challenges to the bylaws and timeshare governing docs,) the costs will escalate further at a fairly rapid pace.

I know there've been comments throughout this from the "concerned owners" that Marriott has not been completely forthcoming with all info, but the level of distrust that exists now is really surprising.  Are some of you seriously thinking that any of the big four accounting firms are in Marriott's pockets and are willing to suspend accepted legal practices and put their professional reputations on the line for one MVCI resort?  I'm sorry, but I've gotta say that the idea is preposterous.  I'm married to a Partner in an accounting firm and there is no way that the partners of PW or any other well-established firm would collectively agree to it.

Honestly, if I was at the point as some of you are where I distrusted Marriott so utterly and completely, I'd want no part of owning any Marriott timeshare.  If any of you who do think this way can explain, I'd love to know your thinking process - why aren't you just selling your week(s) for whatever you can get and removing the negativity from your life?

(PS - Dave, I think ecwinch was being a bit sarcastic with his post about the auditors possibly being in Marriott's pocket, but it's good you offered some expertise about the auditing process.   )


----------



## tlwmkw

Suedonj,

You are absolutely right.  This is just going to get more and more expensive if the lawsuits continue.  The irony is that the concerned owners are really suing themselves since they are owners at the resort and the board was elected by them to represent them.  So they'll be paying the concerned owners lawyers as well as the AOC's lawyers via their maintenance fees- how can they possibly win in this case?  If I owned there I would be starting to get upset at the extra expense they are putting on all the other owners.

As to the accounting firms I agree with you there too- after what happened with Enron and Arthur Andersen in recent years I don't think they would "look the other way" and allow MVCI to do anything that wasn't legal.  It's not in the interest of the accountant to take any risk in this.  What benefit would it be to them?  None.  As you say there is a huge amount of distrust between the two sides and no sign of anyone meeting in the middle.  I think getting out is the best option for those that don't like it.  They bought a Marriott resort and if they don't like how it's run then they should vote with their feet and leave.  I remember Ellen sold her week there after all this came about.  She still likes MVCI but not so much the AOC.

tlwmkw


----------



## modoaruba

Divide $100.000 by the number of unitsX52.
How much is that per individual unit?
I forgot how many there are.
Thanx


----------



## Dave M

Based on the info in the FAQs for this forum, there are 125 units. Multiply that by 51 (not 52, because one week is unsold and reserved for maintenance) and you come up with 6,375 weeks. That's about $15.69 per owner - so far. That might not seem like much, but it's going to go higher and for what?


----------



## Dean

Dave M said:


> Based on the info in the FAQs for this forum, there are 125 units. Multiply that by 51 (not 52, because one week is unsold and reserved for maintenance) and you come up with 6,375 weeks. That's about $15.69 per owner - so far. That might not seem like much, but it's going to go higher and for what?


Dave actually it's likely already higher, the number presented was likely what had been spent and accounted for at a certain point in the past.  These things almost always end up being assigned a cost less than the true cost esp when you consider people's time and they always end up with straggling costs that continue to pour in well after an issue is essentially closed.  Then there's possible reduced resale value that is passed directly to owners for all but unsold units.  Then there are the lasting effects and costs such as the Parliamentarian and system changes just for the BOD and Marriott to further protect themselves.  I can't see anything under a quarter mil even if there are no further actions going forward.


----------



## rickxylon

There have been a lot of very wise words shared so far about the futility of continuing any current law suits. May we please have a response from the person/people in the "concerned owners'" group stating that they will withdraw any and all suits.


----------



## mnabnpos

SueDonJ said:


> Does all this mean that lawsuits have actually been filed to get the list of owners' contact info, because the majority of the owners did not vote to change the current provision?  It's confusing because there's been no mention at all of lawsuits actually being filed to this point, and the last time the board mentioned legal fees they were only associated with the costs for Marriott and MAOC to correctly/legally respond to challenges made by the "concerned owners" group.  I would think that if things are now progressing through the Court system (rather than through challenges to the bylaws and timeshare governing docs,) the costs will escalate further at a fairly rapid pace.
> 
> I know there've been comments throughout this from the "concerned owners" that Marriott has not been completely forthcoming with all info, but the level of distrust that exists now is really surprising.  Are some of you seriously thinking that any of the big four accounting firms are in Marriott's pockets and are willing to suspend accepted legal practices and put their professional reputations on the line for one MVCI resort?  I'm sorry, but I've gotta say that the idea is preposterous.  I'm married to a Partner in an accounting firm and there is no way that the partners of PW or any other well-established firm would collectively agree to it.
> 
> Honestly, if I was at the point as some of you are where I distrusted Marriott so utterly and completely, I'd want no part of owning any Marriott timeshare.  If any of you who do think this way can explain, I'd love to know your thinking process - why aren't you just selling your week(s) for whatever you can get and removing the negativity from your life?
> 
> (PS - Dave, I think ecwinch was being a bit sarcastic with his post about the auditors possibly being in Marriott's pocket, but it's good you offered some expertise about the auditing process.   )



I wouldn't say that I am unhappy with MVCI with regards to the AOC - I actually like and enjoy my timeshares.  But I am becoming, if not already, unhappy, with the current AOC BOD - if these unnecessary fees continue to rise I really have to take a long hard look as to whether it is still financially feasible to own at the AOC.   

If there is any unhappiness with Marriott it is that I am disappointed with Marriott in respect to their greed and how they have overbuilt the end of Palm Beach.  The beach is at the point of being so congested and over-crowded and will only get worse with the Ritz Carlton being built next door.

I wouldn't know about Marriott's accounting firms and any dishonesty going on with them but having been going to Aruba for over 30 years now and seeing how the island has changed/developed and the promises of the Aruban govt to limit the number of resorts/rooms on the island if anything the previous Aruban administration were in the pockets of Marriott.  I believe my facts are correct on this but approx. 2-3 weeks before a new Aruban govt was to be sworn in the Aruban govt leaving office worked out a deal with Marriott to break ground on the RC.  That same administration had worked with Marriott to approve building the Surf Club also..


----------



## SueDonJ

Dave M said:


> Based on the info in the FAQs for this forum, there are 125 units. Multiply that by 51 (not 52, because one week is unsold and reserved for maintenance) and you come up with 6,375 weeks. That's about $15.69 per owner - so far. That might not seem like much, but it's going to go higher and for what?



It's that *per owner* which I think is so unfair.  This is a minority ownership group forcing Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD to incur costs related to protecting themselves and the other owners from unsubstantiated challenges.  It's all fine and dandy for the members of the "concerned owners" group to think that the *per owner* cost here is affordable and thus, justified.  But what about the MAOC owners who have been silent and indifferent to this point, or the MAOC owners who have clearly stated that they are aware of yet disagree with this minority ownership group's position/actions?  Why was it unfair for Marriott to force the ownership group to pay for property repair and timely refurbishment as stipulated in the governing docs, but now it's not unfair for the "concerned owners" group to force the overall membership to absorb costs for their ineffective challenges to Marriott's actions?

I know that the governing docs stipulate that these costs be shared by all owners so there isn't a way for Marriott to bill only the owners who have joined the "concerned owners" group.  But like I said before, I'd hire a private attorney to challenge that if I were an MAOC owner who disagreed with this group, especially because they have not acted in the overall ownership's best interests by following established, required legal procedure.  It just seems so unfair to me that this group by itself does not have to assume the costs for its own actions.


----------



## mnabnpos

tlwmkw said:


> Suedonj,
> 
> You are absolutely right.  This is just going to get more and more expensive if the lawsuits continue.  The irony is that the concerned owners are really suing themselves since they are owners at the resort and the board was elected by them to represent them.  So they'll be paying the concerned owners lawyers as well as the AOC's lawyers via their maintenance fees- how can they possibly win in this case?  If I owned there I would be starting to get upset at the extra expense they are putting on all the other owners.
> 
> As to the accounting firms I agree with you there too- after what happened with Enron and Arthur Andersen in recent years I don't think they would "look the other way" and allow MVCI to do anything that wasn't legal.  It's not in the interest of the accountant to take any risk in this.  What benefit would it be to them?  None.  As you say there is a huge amount of distrust between the two sides and no sign of anyone meeting in the middle.  I think getting out is the best option for those that don't like it.  They bought a Marriott resort and if they don't like how it's run then they should vote with their feet and leave.  I remember Ellen sold her week there after all this came about.  She still likes MVCI but not so much the AOC.
> 
> tlwmkw



Good point - Now that I am understanding where the $100K is coming from - there is an individual AOC owner paying their own lawyers to sue the AOC Coop Association (meaning all of us owners) which technically they are paying their lawyers for also.  Unbelievable... 

Dave, I understand it comes to about $15.00 per person but every little $ saved really helps.


----------



## SueDonJ

mnabnpos said:


> I wouldn't say that I am unhappy with MVCI with regards to the AOC - I actually like and enjoy my timeshares.  But I am becoming, if not already, unhappy, with the current AOC BOD - if these unnecessary fees continue to rise I really have to take a long hard look as to whether it is still financially feasible to own at the AOC.



I don't agree that this BOD is at fault for the special assessment, increased m/f or legal fees.  We've discussed at length in this thread how this board is in the unfortunate position of having to make up for insufficient reserves set by previous boards which would have covered timely refurbishment as well as various repairs, and how the current m/f appear to now be more in line with current operating costs and realistic future needs.  As for the legal costs that are mounting, ANY board would be doing a disservice to the ownership at large if they did NOT respond to challenges in a clearly and correctly legal manner.  All that said, though, most of the contributors to this thread pretty much agree that these board members will suffer for their unfortunate situation by not being voted back in when their terms are up for renewal.   



mnabnpos said:


> If there is any unhappiness with Marriott it is that I am disappointed with Marriott in respect to their greed and how they have overbuilt the end of Palm Beach.  The beach is at the point of being so congested and over-crowded and will only get worse with the Ritz Carlton being built next door.
> 
> I wouldn't know about Marriott's accounting firms and any dishonesty going on with them but having been going to Aruba for over 30 years now and seeing how the island has changed/developed and the promises of the Aruban govt to limit the number of resorts/rooms on the island if anything the previous Aruban administration were in the pockets of Marriott.  I believe my facts are correct on this but approx. 2-3 weeks before a new Aruban govt was to be sworn in the Aruban govt leaving office worked out a deal with Marriott to break ground on the RC.  That same administration had worked with Marriott to approve building the Surf Club also..



That would bother me too.  But what's Yogi's old saying?  "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."  Marriott and all the other resort companies are responding to the demand for the island experience, and the island government is taking advantage of the situation.  Stinks all around if you like a laid-back island vacation, which I do and it appears you do, too.


----------



## Dean

SueDonJ said:


> It's that *per owner* which I think is so unfair.  This is a minority ownership group forcing Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD to incur costs related to protecting themselves and the other owners from unsubstantiated challenges.  It's all fine and dandy for the members of the "concerned owners" group to think that the *per owner* cost here is affordable and thus, justified.  But what about the MAOC owners who have been silent and indifferent to this point, or the MAOC owners who have clearly stated that they are aware of yet disagree with this minority ownership group's position/actions?  Why was it unfair for Marriott to force the ownership group to pay for property repair and timely refurbishment as stipulated in the governing docs, but now it's not unfair for the "concerned owners" group to force the overall membership to absorb costs for their ineffective challenges to Marriott's actions?
> 
> I know that the governing docs stipulate that these costs be shared by all owners so there isn't a way for Marriott to bill only the owners who have joined the "concerned owners" group.  But like I said before, I'd hire a private attorney to challenge that if I were an MAOC owner who disagreed with this group, especially because they have not acted in the overall ownership's best interests by following established, required legal procedure.  It just seems so unfair to me that this group by itself does not have to assume the costs for its own actions.


I'm not sure you've seen the end of this side either.  I think it's very possible that Marriott and the BOD will go after the costs from the plaintiffs and I'd say almost 50/50 that there will be criminal proceedings regarding some of the other issues as well.


----------



## modoaruba

Dave M said:


> Based on the info in the FAQs for this forum, there are 125 units. Multiply that by 51 (not 52, because one week is unsold and reserved for maintenance) and you come up with 6,375 weeks. That's about $15.69 per owner - so far. That might not seem like much, but it's going to go higher and for what?



Thanks for the info.
So my understanding is that if a suit was to be and won,it would mean $156.90 per million won less legal fees per unit.
So how many millions is sought after to make it worth while to continue?
A $100,000,000 will not even pay for one week MF per unit as I see it.

Am I looking at this wrong?


----------



## rickxylon

*Still waiting for "Concerned Owners" response*

The silence is somewhat deafining. May we please have the courtesy of a reply to our questions? It would help the rest of us who have concerns about your actions. 

Thank you.


----------



## mnabnpos

If anyone would have a copy of the lawsuit would they kindly attach it or send a link to it?  There are supposedly two lawsuits.  I have also asked the AOC BOD to e-mail to me a copy of the lawsuit since I am an owner paying our lawyers to defend this lawsuit.  I should be entitled to view it.

Also, if the owner who has filed this lawsuit reads this TUG forum can you please let us know what the purpose and ultimate goal of this lawsuit is?  The AOC BOD memo states "We will not speculate on the intended use of your personal information by the Owner who is requesting it."  Why is a list of the owners needed?  Does it have to do with the roof replacement, the utilities, the increase in maintenance fees, the upgrades and renovations, starting a new business and need a mailing list to mail flyers out, etc...?  What is it?  Thank you....


----------



## tlwmkw

mnabnpos,

I'm not a member of the concerned owners group but my understanding, from reading this thread over the last year, is that they want the list of owners so that they can contact them and let them know who they are and what they are doing.  Apparently because the building was left unfinished for some time prior to Marriott taking it over they feel that they have a case for a law suit.  As to what their goals are no one really knows- they have been asked that numerous times by people on this thread and they have never really answered.

Out of curiosity, how did you find out about this situation and the information on TUG?

tlwmkw


----------



## dioxide45

tlwmkw said:


> mnabnpos,
> 
> I'm not a member of the concerned owners group but my understanding, from reading this thread over the last year, is that they want the list of owners so that they can contact them and let them know who they are and what they are doing.  Apparently because the building was left unfinished for some time prior to Marriott taking it over they feel that they have a case for a law suit.  As to what their goals are no one really knows- they have been asked that numerous times by people on this thread and they have never really answered.
> 
> Out of curiosity, how did you find out about this situation and the information on TUG?
> 
> tlwmkw



I thought their goal was for Marriott to pay 100% of the roof replacement cost and also to pay the HOA for use of space used for sales and marketing. Unfortunately the use of sales space is written in to all of the governing documents of most if not all of the Marriott resorts.


----------



## lovearuba

*contact information*



mnabnpos said:


> If anyone would have a copy of the lawsuit would they kindly attach it or send a link to it? There are supposedly two lawsuits. I have also asked the AOC BOD to e-mail to me a copy of the lawsuit since I am an owner paying our lawyers to defend this lawsuit. I should be entitled to view it.
> 
> Also, if the owner who has filed this lawsuit reads this TUG forum can you please let us know what the purpose and ultimate goal of this lawsuit is? The AOC BOD memo states "We will not speculate on the intended use of your personal information by the Owner who is requesting it." Why is a list of the owners needed? Does it have to do with the roof replacement, the utilities, the increase in maintenance fees, the upgrades and renovations, starting a new business and need a mailing list to mail flyers out, etc...? What is it? Thank you....


 
Hi
If you are looking for information go to www.aocconcernedowners.com and contact Allan Cohen.  His info is on the right side of the page, you do not need to register to contact him.  He would be happy to give you more information.


----------



## tlwmkw

dioxide45,

Yes, you are right, it did begin with that and the special assessments but I think the reason they filed the current suit to get access to owners contact information was to be able to let other owners know of their existence.  They also initially talked of filing a class action law-suit against Marriott/MVCI/the AOC but I don't know if they are still pursuing this or not.  Someone has stated that there is another suit but I haven't seen anything about it here (and one of the owners was asking what that was about).  Honestly though, it has never been very clear what they were trying to achieve (payment for defective building, transparency of the boards actions, dismissal of the current board, etc) and despite many people asking them it has never really been spelled out in a coherent way.

tlwmkw


----------



## lovearuba

*information*



tlwmkw said:


> dioxide45,
> 
> Yes, you are right, it did begin with that and the special assessments but I think the reason they filed the current suit to get access to owners contact information was to be able to let other owners know of their existence. They also initially talked of filing a class action law-suit against Marriott/MVCI/the AOC but I don't know if they are still pursuing this or not. Someone has stated that there is another suit but I haven't seen anything about it here (and one of the owners was asking what that was about). Honestly though, it has never been very clear what they were trying to achieve (payment for defective building, transparency of the boards actions, dismissal of the current board, etc) and despite many people asking them it has never really been spelled out in a coherent way.
> 
> tlwmkw


 
If owners want information they can contact Allan.  You are right there were many different options discussed and some of them took on a life of their own. Many through speculation with this thread.  This has become like an urban legend which is why many of the people involved no longer bother posting here.  They have their own site and direct contact with Allan.


----------



## mnabnpos

tlwmkw said:


> mnabnpos,
> 
> I'm not a member of the concerned owners group but my understanding, from reading this thread over the last year, is that they want the list of owners so that they can contact them and let them know who they are and what they are doing.  Apparently because the building was left unfinished for some time prior to Marriott taking it over they feel that they have a case for a law suit.  As to what their goals are no one really knows- they have been asked that numerous times by people on this thread and they have never really answered.
> 
> Out of curiosity, how did you find out about this situation and the information on TUG?
> 
> tlwmkw



tlwmkw,

My neighbor who has 4 weeks of timeshare at the Surf Club told me about TUG a few months ago after I was complaining to him about the utilities and assessment fees and we were comparing them to his fees.  He told me to start reading TUG.  Then I found this thread.

Going to Aruba for the past 30+ years and frequenting the Holiday Inn for years before the Marriott Resort, the OC and SC, Playa Linda, Hyatt, Divi Phoenix(originally Ramada) were even thought of being built on Palm Beach, I do remember these buildings abandoned by an Italian company who went bankrupt (Not sure but I think the hotels were to be called Beta).  I used to walk the beach past these buildings many times in the early 1990's and they looked in poor shape (I am not a structural expert though) when Marriott first purchased the building which is now the resort and casino (I believe this was 1993-94).  A few years later they began work on the other building (now the OC) which did look like it deteriorated more since this structure was left abandoned longer (maybe until 1996-97).

When I asked my Aruban friends back then why Marriott took the far end structure to build the resort and casino leaving the empty structure in the middle between the future Marriott Resort and Holiday Inn, they told me it was the better of the two structures.  When I pre-purchased the OC TS, I asked the sales rep the same question and she told me that Marriott always had intended to build on both properties.  I had no idea who was telling the truth - I just saw how nice of a job they did with the Marriott Resort & Casino and how serene the beach was over there.  It was like you were on your own private resort island - the Holiday Inn 1/4 - 1/2 mile away on the south side and the Fisherman's Huts 1,000's of yards away on the north side.   The plans for the OC looked terrific with less units than the Resort.  That is why I bought pre-purchase when the structure was still a shell.

Anyway, it sounds like a difficult feat to prove.  Someone would probably have to prove that *both* buildings were structurally deficient.  Good luck!!  BUT --- Why get other owners concurrence by asking for our personal info - if this one person(s) (I am assuming concerned owner(s)) have a case then just bring it to court themselves against Marriott and prove it.  Leave the AOC owners that are indifferent or don't really care out of it.  That is what I don't understand about this bickering back and forth here.  I am only concerned about my fees going up now and in the future.  This lawsuit is not helping keep my annual fees down.


----------



## SueDonJ

This post from Marksue last December, a letter from Allan Cohen, explains somewhat one of the matters now in the court system.  It doesn't say, though, in whose name the lawsuit was filed or if any members of the "concerned owners" group have given POA to that person to act on their behalf, but Allan does refer to "we" in the letter:


> ... When the Board refused to share our information with all Owners we sought a summary judgement from an Aruba judge. After the Board/MVCI/Marriott again refused to share our information with all the Owners the judge decided not to rule on the matter and requested that it be filed with the full court which we have done. ...



Referring back to what Dean has posted, I wonder if the one person in whose name the suit was filed has considered that s/he may be responsible for all of the legal costs, if/when Marriott wins and goes after the costs.


----------



## SueDonJ

mnabnpos said:


> ...  BUT --- Why get other owners concurrence by asking for our personal info - if this one person(s) (I am assuming concerned owner(s)) have a case then just bring it to court themselves against Marriott and prove it.  Leave the AOC owners that are indifferent or don't really care out of it.  That is what I don't understand about this bickering back and forth here.  I am only concerned about my fees going up now and in the future.  This lawsuit is not helping keep my annual fees down.



Another of the stated goals of the "concerned owners" group is to remove members of this board sooner than they'll be up for re-election, by adhering to the bylaw requirements to put a vote to all owners before that time.  It's their contention that not enough of an ownership majority is privy to the info the group is holding which will supposedly convince all the other owners to enact and participate in a special meeting vote, and if the group has access to the owners' contact info then they'll be able to notify the owners directly of their version of the info, thereby gaining the majority vote to oust the board.  Or something like that.

I can give you a hint for finding in this thread the limited info that has been furnished by Allan Cohen, a former member of the MAOC BOD.  Just click on marksue's name in his last post and choose "Find More Posts ..." from the dropdown menu, then scan those for any that include Allan's name at the bottom.  Allan rarely posts here, instead marksue reprints his letters.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> If owners want information they can contact Allan.  You are right there were many different options discussed and some of them took on a life of their own. Many through speculation with this thread.  This has become like an urban legend which is why many of the people involved no longer bother posting here.  They have their own site and direct contact with Allan.



Are not urban legends easily debunked by those with first hand knowledge of the events?  

Are the debunking of those urban myths on the private site?

ie.

That Allan, while a member of the AOC Board, provided e-mail addresses of owners to Mark to start the concerned owners group? The e-mail addresses of owners that Allan obtained in his capacity on the AOC Board.

or 

That Allan encouraged Mark to pursue a lawsuit against MVCI. An action that Allan had pursued while on the Board, and that was reviewed, discussed, and not pursued by the AOC Board.


----------



## lovearuba

*urban legends*



ecwinch said:


> Are not urban legends easily debunked by those with first hand knowledge of the events?
> 
> Are the debunking of those urban myths on the private site?
> 
> ie.
> 
> That Allan, while a member of the AOC Board, provided e-mail addresses of owners to Mark to start the concerned owners group? The e-mail addresses of owners that Allan obtained in his capacity on the AOC Board.
> 
> or
> 
> That Allan encouraged Mark to pursue a lawsuit against MVCI. An action that Allan had pursued while on the Board, and that was reviewed, discussed, and not pursued by the AOC Board.


 

Eric
I appreciate that you believe both statements, not all of us do.  I know Allan did not provide me email, I saw Marks post and called him as many others did.  Many of the others that joined the website were solicited through this thread as well as through hard work by vacationers in Aruba.  I initially received many emails from requesting them here.  Once the website was launched those emails were used to encourage people to register.  The only legal action that I am aware of is the action to request access from Marriott to contact information for the owners so they too can be contacted and determine for themselves if they want involvement.  The goal is to remove the current board to gain transparency on the board.  www.aocconcernedowners.com


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> ... The goal is to remove the current board to gain transparency on the board.



It's been asked so many times - if the bylaws don't allow the level of "transparency" that you're after, how will you be able to get it?  If you can manage to remove this board (either by calling a Special Meeting and having a successful vote, or by waiting until their terms are up for renewal and not voting them back in,) how will you be able to guarantee that the seats will be filled by new members who can give you what you want?  That question hasn't been answered here at all here, and I doubt Allan would be able to answer it if he's contacted directly.  The fact is simply that Marriott does hold some control over which names make it onto the ballot for new board positions - it's not required that all names put up for nomination be put onto the ballot, and it is stipulated in the bylaws that certain seats are held by Marriott.

But besides the problems you'd have with the nomination/voting process, any board members (your "puppets" or Marriott's) are required to abide by the bylaws and the board's decisions - if the bylaws stipulate that something discussed/learned in a BOD Meeting cannot be released to the overall ownership, then "transparency" (as it appears your group is defining it) cannot be obtained.  Not without further challenges by way of Special Meetings and votes, anyway, which will mean additional legal costs and drawing out this long process even longer.

IMO, it's all well and good to have a stated goal but it doesn't appear that there are any plans in place to actually achieve that goal, or any consideration given to the cost which will have to be assumed by the overall ownership if each of the many required steps is successful.


----------



## SueDonJ

ecwinch said:


> ... That Allan encouraged Mark to pursue a lawsuit against MVCI. An action that Allan had pursued while on the Board, and that was reviewed, discussed, and not pursued by the AOC Board.





lovearuba said:


> ... I appreciate that you believe both statements, not all of us do.



With respect to Eric's statement about Allan encouraging Mark to pursue a lawsuit, how can anybody not believe that?!?!  Mark stated it himself!  It was in the first couple of his posts in this thread, here and here are Mark's own words:

"A board member said to me if you find a lawyer who would like to take on a class action suit there would be many people who would be willing to be part of the suit."

"I actually spoke with Alan and he is the one that suggested getting people togehter and trying to find an attorney to start a class action."



ecwinch said:


> ... That Allan, while a member of the AOC Board, provided e-mail addresses of owners to Mark to start the concerned owners group? The e-mail addresses of owners that Allan obtained in his capacity on the AOC Board. ...





lovearuba said:


> ... I know Allan did not provide me email, I saw Marks post and called him as many others did.



Even if your email wasn't harvested illegally by Mark through Allan, at least one MAOC owner has posted to this thread that he is convinced his was and several others have stated that it's a possibility with theirs.  It's awfully convenient for the "concerned owners" group to gloss over that and negate the experiences of the MAOC owners who have not joined your group.  That tactic doesn't exactly reflect well on your cause.


----------



## lovearuba

*my experience*



SueDonJ said:


> With respect to Eric's statement about Allan encouraging Mark to pursue a lawsuit, how can anybody not believe that?!?! Mark stated it himself! It was in the first couple of his posts in this thread, here and here are Mark's own words:
> 
> "A board member said to me if you find a lawyer who would like to take on a class action suit there would be many people who would be willing to be part of the suit."
> 
> "I actually spoke with Alan and he is the one that suggested getting people togehter and trying to find an attorney to start a class action."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if your email wasn't harvested illegally by Mark through Allan, at least one MAOC owner has posted to this thread that he is convinced his was and several others have stated that it's a possibility with theirs. It's awfully convenient for the "concerned owners" group to gloss over that and negate the experiences of the MAOC owners who have not joined your group. That tactic doesn't exactly reflect well on your cause.


 
My experience is my experience as I stated before.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> My experience is my experience as I stated before.



Of course.  But you didn't say before that you didn't have the same experience as others; you said that you didn't believe it happened.


----------



## SueDonJ

I just searched under the "Owners" tab of MAOC's page on my-vacationclub.com but none of the letters to owners that reference the lawsuit(s) are available there.  What has been put there recently, though, is the minutes of the January Special Meeting.  Interesting.

- Marriott did not exercise its right to vote during that meeting; neither quorum requirements nor the majority result were influenced by anything other than owner votes.

- More than 39% of owners participated in this vote, compared to an average of only 25% for every voting action over the last five years.

- The final tally was "1,394 votes in favor and 7,352 votes against the home postal mailing address and electronic mailing address to be included in the Association Shareholder Register."

Does anyone in the "concerned owners" group realize how strongly these numbers will support Marriott in the Court action currently progressing?  The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the Court upholding the owners' vote; no judge is going to easily dismiss either of the facts of unprecedented owner participation or that the majority vote was so lopsided.


----------



## rickxylon

SueDonJ said:


> I just searched under the "Owners" tab of MAOC's page on my-vacationclub.com but none of the letters to owners that reference the lawsuit(s) are available there.  What has been put there recently, though, is the minutes of the January Special Meeting.  Interesting.
> 
> - Marriott did not exercise its right to vote during that meeting; neither quorum requirements nor the majority result were influenced by anything other than owner votes.
> 
> - More than 39% of owners participated in this vote, compared to an average of only 25% for every voting action over the last five years.
> 
> - The final tally was "1,394 votes in favor and 7,352 votes against the home postal mailing address and electronic mailing address to be included in the Association Shareholder Register."
> 
> Does anyone in the "concerned owners" group realize how strongly these numbers will support Marriott in the Court action currently progressing?  The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the Court upholding the owners' vote; no judge is going to easily dismiss either of the facts of unprecedented owner participation or that the majority vote was so lopsided.




Thanks, Sue

Looks like overwhelming reasons for the suit to be dropped. I think that action might show that the "concerned owners" group is truly concerned about ALL of us instead of just themselves.


----------



## modoaruba

There was an issue presented by the concerned owners regarding obtaining the list of owners for the purpose of notifying all as to the concerns.
If this was accomplished, by now they would have an idea as to how many owners would pursue the group's agenda.
The problem is that Marriott is obstructing that from happening therefore the legalities.
Anyone on this thread has some idea of the happenings but the majority of owners possibly do not know because either they do not know of this thread or because they cannot be contacted by the group.
At this point no one can say where the majority would be if all the cards were laid out by both sides.
All else is speculative.

The letter sent by Marriott to owners was to place fear that if the owners approved of letters to be sent then the owners could be a target of unwanted solicitations.

However,the concerned group could not have equal leverage in the campaign because they could not get the list of owners to tell them of the concerns.


Only one party was campaigning.

It's just a viscious circle.


----------



## lovearuba

modoaruba said:


> There was an issue presented by the concerned owners regarding obtaining the list of owners for the purpose of notifying all as to the concerns.
> If this was accomplished, by now they would have an idea as to how many owners would pursue the group's agenda.
> The problem is that Marriott is obstructing that from happening therefore the legalities.
> Anyone on this thread has some idea of the happenings but the majority of owners possibly do not know because either they do not know of this thread or because they cannot be contacted by the group.
> At this point no one can say where the majority would be if all the cards were laid out by both sides.
> All else is speculative.
> 
> The letter sent by Marriott to owners was to place fear that if the owners approved of letters to be sent then the owners could be a target of unwanted solicitations.
> 
> However,the concerned group could not have equal leverage in the campaign because they could not get the list of owners to tell them of the concerns.
> 
> 
> Only one party was campaigning.
> 
> It's just a viscious circle.


 
Hi Modo, 

I certainly agree with that.  
Just for the record, if anyone is asking me to respond to your inquiries here and I havent its intentional, I've already decided you have made up your mind and I'm not here to be grilled to see if you can trip me up or try and interpret my words to fit your purpose.  My current purpose is to provide owners who have not heard of the concerned owners website with information to access it.  www.aocconcernedowners.com


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> Hi Modo,
> 
> I certainly agree with that.
> Just for the record, if anyone is asking me to respond to your inquiries here and I havent its intentional, I've already decided you have made up your mind and I'm not here to be grilled to see if you can trip me up or try and interpret my words to fit your purpose.  My current purpose is to provide owners who have not heard of the concerned owners website with information to access it.  www.aocconcernedowners.com



I don't think any of us need to worry about whether or not our individual posts get any responses.  It's enough that here we're all able to provide our own opinions and thoughts so that MAOC owners are able to find every bit of available information to better help them form their own opinions.


----------



## mnabnpos

ecwinch said:


> Are not urban legends easily debunked by those with first hand knowledge of the events?
> 
> Are the debunking of those urban myths on the private site?
> 
> ie.
> 
> That Allan, while a member of the AOC Board, provided e-mail addresses of owners to Mark to start the concerned owners group? The e-mail addresses of owners that Allan obtained in his capacity on the AOC Board.
> 
> or
> 
> That Allan encouraged Mark to pursue a lawsuit against MVCI. An action that Allan had pursued while on the Board, and that was reviewed, discussed, and not pursued by the AOC Board.



IF the final issue at hand is about the structure, roof, etc. and IF Allan, Mark or any of the concerned owners feel they have a case against MVCI, then go ahead and sue MVCI and leave the AOC BOD and the rest of the owners out of this.  The board did not build the structure, Marriott did and Marriott sold it to us.  It sounds as though whether someone has a list of owners names or not a lawsuit against MVCI is imminent. You don't need numbers to file a lawsuit in a court of law the last time I checked.  If a concerned owner has the proof of what they claim then it will prevail in court.  The concerned owner(s) should save their money paying for their lawyers for the list of owners lawsuit and put it toward suing MVCI - they are going to need every penny to pay for their lawyers to sue MVCI.


----------



## modoaruba

mnabnpos said:


> IF the final issue at hand is about the structure, roof, etc. and IF Allan, Mark or any of the concerned owners feel they have a case against MVCI, then go ahead and sue MVCI and leave the AOC BOD and the rest of the owners out of this.  The board did not build the structure, Marriott did and Marriott sold it to us.  It sounds as though whether someone has a list of owners names or not a lawsuit against MVCI is imminent. You don't need numbers to file a lawsuit in a court of law the last time I checked.  If a concerned owner has the proof of what they claim then it will prevail in court.  The concerned owner(s) should save their money paying for their lawyers for the list of owners lawsuit and put it toward suing MVCI - they are going to need every penny to pay for their lawyers to sue MVCI.



Understand that the way you are attacking the group because they do not represent your concerns or the way you would go about it,you are on the other hand making statements as if you represent the rest of us owners.

I see it inappropriate for any owner to take it upon themselves to say "leave the rest of us alone" until you hear from the rest of us.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> Eric
> I appreciate that you believe both statements, not all of us do.  I know Allan did not provide me email, I saw Marks post and called him as many others did.  Many of the others that joined the website were solicited through this thread as well as through hard work by vacationers in Aruba.  I initially received many emails from requesting them here.  Once the website was launched those emails were used to encourage people to register.  The only legal action that I am aware of is the action to request access from Marriott to contact information for the owners so they too can be contacted and determine for themselves if they want involvement.  The goal is to remove the current board to gain transparency on the board.  www.aocconcernedowners.com


Are you saying that there was no membership or email list provided to the group other than what was generated independently?  If so, how would you know who was not an owner.  I seem to recall statements that those who registered were being confirmed or denied based on their ownership at the resort and hints that the group had an actual list of owners.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> Understand that the way you are attacking the group because they do not represent your concerns or the way you would go about it,you are on the other hand making statements as if you represent the rest of us owners.
> 
> I see it inappropriate for any owner to take it upon themselves to say "leave the rest of us alone" until you hear from the rest of us.


But that is EXACTLY what was said by several that speak for the "concerned owners" to the point that they would not let those register with the website that did not agree with their actions.  It was made clear this wasn't a site for the general membership there but only those that took the one side.


----------



## modoaruba

Dean said:


> But that is EXACTLY what was said by several that speak for the "concerned owners" to the point that they would not let those register with the website that did not agree with their actions.  It was made clear this wasn't a site for the general membership there but only those that took the one side.



It's not the same in my opinion.
No one is stopping the "un" concerned owners from forming their own group and keeping the concerned owners out.
The problem with that is that they will not have access to the owner's list to solicit their points of view thanks to Marriott.
So to get a definitive count as to how many owners really are or are not concerned is held up by Marriott.
Any one coming up with a anticipated head count would be speculative.


----------



## modoaruba

Just to add.
If both groups were to ask Marriott for the list of owners to be able to air both opinions and if both groups together represent a majority of owners it would get us out of this quandry. Will the threat of solicitation be warned to both?
So what's the hold up?
Can't wait to get an answer.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> Just to add.
> If both groups were to ask Marriott for the list of owners to be able to air both opinions and if both groups together represent a majority of owners it would get us out of this quandry. Will the threat of solicitation be warned to both?
> So what's the hold up?
> Can't wait to get an answer.



Marriott's not going to release the list to any individual owner or group of owners unless they're forced to do so by a court order or successful bylaw amendment.  That's what you've been fighting, isn't it, that the bylaws don't allow the information to be released?  The reason anybody wants the contact information is totally irrelevant, as is the supposition that releasing it will resolve this conflict.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> Just to add.
> If both groups were to ask Marriott for the list of owners to be able to air both opinions and if both groups together represent a majority of owners it would get us out of this quandry. Will the threat of solicitation be warned to both?
> So what's the hold up?
> Can't wait to get an answer.


Solicitation is inappropriate for either group and anyone else at the resort other than in an official capacity under official guidelines, to me that is an absolute.  As for having a balanced debate at the expense of Marriott or the resort, I don't see that as appropriate either other than under the rules for the appropriate noticed meetings.  Though we've asked to see the documents, no one has provided them, thus I must presume some issues based on my knowledge of another Aruban Timeshare, other Marriott's and US Timeshares (esp FL).  Generally one can send out "appropriate" mailings at their (requester's) expense to all owners with most timeshares.  There is also a method for getting amendments on the ballot by people other than the BOD, my understanding is that was done on the release of info and voted down rather handily.  



modoaruba said:


> It's not the same in my opinion.
> No one is stopping the "un" concerned owners from forming their own group and keeping the concerned owners out.
> The problem with that is that they will not have access to the owner's list to solicit their points of view thanks to Marriott.
> So to get a definitive count as to how many owners really are or are not concerned is held up by Marriott.
> Any one coming up with a anticipated head count would be speculative.


Personally, I see no difference other than you agree with one group and not the other.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> Eric
> I appreciate that you believe both statements, not all of us do.  I know Allan did not provide me email, I saw Marks post and called him as many others did.  Many of the others that joined the website were solicited through this thread as well as through hard work by vacationers in Aruba.  I initially received many emails from requesting them here.  Once the website was launched those emails were used to encourage people to register.  The only legal action that I am aware of is the action to request access from Marriott to contact information for the owners so they too can be contacted and determine for themselves if they want involvement.  The goal is to remove the current board to gain transparency on the board.  www.aocconcernedowners.com



Have you asked Allan the question directly? When I did he did not deny it.

My perspective is not derived from idle speculation. Nor need yours. Just ask the question. You only need to "believe" in his credibility.


----------



## dioxide45

There is one way to get all owners notified of the groups actions, file a lawsuit and get it class certified. Notification must then take place to all participants in the class. In this case it would be all owners.


----------



## SueDonJ

Dean said:


> Are you saying that there was no membership or email list provided to the group other than what was generated independently?  If so, how would you know who was not an owner.  I seem to recall statements that those who registered were being confirmed or denied based on their ownership at the resort and hints that the group had an actual list of owners.



You're right, there is a list used by the folks at that website to confirm ownership of whoever tries to register there.  When I asked about it somebody (Modo?) said that it was the list which would be available to anyone who asked in person at the resort, and that it only contains owners' names but not postal/email addresses.  The question about who obtained it and when was never answered.

[edited to add}  But the issues surrounding that list are separate from the questionable harvesting and use of email addresses.  I believe it was "LovetoTravel" (?, think that's the screen name) who said that s/he received an email invitation from Marksue to his Facebook (? MySpace) page.  If I'm remembering correctly, s/he is convinced that Marksue gained access to his/her email address through contact s/he'd had with Allan while he was a member of the MAOC BOD.


----------



## SueDonJ

dioxide45 said:


> There is one way to get all owners notified of the groups actions, file a lawsuit and get it class certified. Notification must then take place to all participants in the class. In this case it would be all owners.



That was the original suggestion - to collect roof repair and various other fees from Marriott - but the fear was that it would be too expensive.  As well, Dave, John, Dean and a few other timeshare-savvy people offered their opinions about how difficult it would be to win a suit, by outlining what requirements would have to be met in order for the "concerned owners" group to be able to succeed, and the goal became reaching the entire ownership base in the hope that negative publicity or owner outcry would convince Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD to kowtow to the "concerned owners" group's demands (which appeared to conflict with the bylaws of MAOC and the management agreement between MVCI and the MAOC BOD.)

Naturally following the threat of a lawsuit that began this public thread,  Marriott et al did not agree to informal or relaxed requests for owner addresses or any other negotiations, and then the goals became removing the sitting BOD and trying to get the postal/email addresses of all owners.  The thought process appeared to be strength in numbers, that an ownership majority would side and act with the "concerned owners" group if they only knew whatever damaging info that group is holding.  But minus competent legal counsel, the few attempts made to oust board members or collect contact info were unsuccessful.

In between all that, more and more suppositions were gleaned from the limited info released to this thread by the principals which allowed Marriott et al to be proactive and head off every challenge.  Throughout, every one of Marriott's actions has been taken with the utmost legal protections, obviously an effort to defend themselves if/when any of this ever actually goes before a judge.

I agree with you and have for a while, that there won't be a resolution unless and until that threatened class action suit is filed.  But if I were an owner at MAOC and had access to this thread, I'd have the opinion that such a suit would be impossible for the owners to win.  Too many educated opinions have been offered here by extremely savvy timeshare owners, to counter every argument offered by the "concerned owners" group.  If these smart people are able to recognize the unreasonableness of the group's demands, then certainly Marriott's legal department will have no problem successfully defeating the challenges.


----------



## modoaruba

Sue,
By your last comment are you insinuating that the Group members are highly uneducated,unsavvy,and stupid?


----------



## SueDonJ

I'm not insinuating anything.  I'm stating what I've stated before and have believed throughout this entire thread - the "concerned owners" group would have been better served if they'd hired a competent attorney to research all of the relevant issues, allowed him/her to determine what could be reasonably expected from Marriott et al, and to act completely on their behalf.

That means finding out exactly what would have been required to submit that request for a Special Meeting to oust the board members instead of Mark's debacle of that "on behalf of" petition; what would have been required to gain access to the owners' contact information by submitting a more limited re-worded provision for a Special Meeting vote before Marriott was able to; what would be required to attain any other goal desired by the "concerned owners" group.  It would mean an attorney putting his/her name to all communications between the group and Marriott et al.  And probably most importantly, any competent attorney the group hired would have had half his/her work done already in this thread - it would be a simple matter for him/her to research the info offered by the smart folks in this thread in order to determine if it is correct, instead of what did happen with it.  Namely, it was automatically and unreasonably discounted by the principals of the "concerned owners" group simply because it was contrary to their thought processes.  Each and every time an educated opinion was offered, it wasn't considered by the group to be fact until one of their measures was counteracted by Marriott as predicted.


----------



## ecwinch

modoaruba said:


> Sue,
> By your last comment are you insinuating that the Group members are highly uneducated,unsavvy,and stupid?



This seems an attempt to just be inflammatory. I do not think any of the regular contributors to this thread have ever generalized the entire group in such a demeaning fashion.

I can only speak for myself. I personally may feel the leadership of the group is misguided in terms of their true purpose and ill-informed on the process they need to adhere to. Lacking expertise in Aruban corporate law and in particular - minority shareholder rights does not make someone uneducated in general or stupid. Just ill-informed on the key area that the leadership needs to be well-versed in to effective lead the group.


----------



## tlwmkw

Modo,

You are wrong to say that Suedonj is implying any of that.  She is simply laying out the facts.  You call many of the posters on this site Marriott supporters but that is just not true- I think most are simply trying to give advice and show what Marriott's viewpoint would be and what they can and cannot legally do.  I see it both ways- it is certainly unpleasant to have to pay large special assessments but if your board has persuaded Marriott to pay 40% of the cost of the new roof that sounds like a pretty major victory to me.  I also think Marriott is being as transparent as they can be as far as explaining where the money is going.  If the case against Marriott was so strong and so easily proven then I think this situation would have been resolved by now.  The fact that really nothing has been achieved shows that the case is not so black and white.  Sues point is that if you had gotten good legal advice early on then you might have realized this and been happy with what your board has already achieved.  

tlwmkw


----------



## rickxylon

Based on everything that has been said on this thread, many of us MAOC owners are failing to understand why continuing to press these issues in the courts is doing any good. It seems like all it is doing is adding to the costs of every owner at a time when we are all looking to reduce our expenses. Marriott seems to be doing what any corporation would be required to do. 

Obtaining the complete owner list with contact information also seems to now be a dead issue with the overwhelming vote of owners. Pursuing this further through legal means continues to add unnecessary expenses to all owners.

Are we missing some information, or has pursuing Marriott to the ends of the earth developed into a cause that is consuming the passions of the concerned owners leaders?


----------



## SueDonJ

Thanks Eric and tlw, that's exactly what I meant.

Another thing ... if I were an MAOC owner, I would be extremely concerned about the longterm relationship between the resort and MVCI as the management company.  A few of the things that the "concerned owners" group says it ultimately wants are clearly in contrast to the management style of MVCI:

- the governing docs of every MVCI resort stipulate that at least one seat on the BOD be held by a Marriott employee and that Marriott be entitled to certain voting shares, this group wants those rights to be revoked.

- unrestricted BOD access is simply not available at most every resort, the use of a generic BODatXYZMVCIresortdotcom email address which funnels owner letters through the GM has been implemented system-wide

- all MVCI BOD meetings are held according to established standards adopted throughout the business world (i.e. Roberts Rules etc.).  Marriott et al will not suspend those practices at only one resort, especially this one where a minority ownership group is making the demands for informal BOD access, completely open meetings and taped recordings of every board action.

- the updated, high-quality lighting fixtures, furniture, tv's, etc. used in the MAOC refurbishment have all been questioned in this thread, but every MVCI resort's governing docs stipulate that Marriott as the management company is able to determine and implement a "brand standard" across all of its properties.

and on and on ... 

There is a real danger here that if any of these demands made by the "concerned owners" group are met by virtue of legal action, Marriott will dissolve the management contract and the Aruba Ocean Club will no longer have the "Marriott" name on its door.  It's happened at other resorts, there's no reason to be arrogant enough to think that it can't happen here.

And if it does?  I would expect the "concerned owners" group to exert their influence such that they would be the ruling board of whatever the resort is at that point.  Considering the "style" of their actions that's been on display in this thread, that thought is sobering.


----------



## rickxylon

SueDonJ

Thanks for sharing your most recent thoughts. I never thought about these potential ramifications. I think it is not "sobering" but scary! I, and I am sure many other owners, would NOT want Marriott's name removed from the Ocean Club name.


----------



## marksue

rickxylon said:


> Obtaining the complete owner list with contact information also seems to now be a dead issue with the overwhelming vote of owners. Pursuing this further through legal means continues to add unnecessary expenses to all owners.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> This case will not end until the list is received.  The vote was based on false information and the method and message used is being presented in the courts.  This is the first step of a multiple step process.  As mentioned previously our attorney is operating on a contingency basis.
> 
> We the concerned owners believe strongly we will prevail in the courts.  The reason we are in the courts is the BOD would not send out the mailing we had asked and we even offered to pay for the postage.  Youwant to blame anyone for the costs, look at th BOD who felt the voice of many owners was not worth sharing with the rest of the owners, yet they could send out a mailing using scare tactics.
> 
> Have a great day.


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> This case will not end until the list is received.  The vote was based on false information and the method and message used is being presented in the courts.  This is the first step of a multiple step process.  As mentioned previously our attorney is operating on a contingency basis.
> 
> We the concerned owners believe strongly we will prevail in the courts.  The reason we are in the courts is the BOD would not send out the mailing we had asked and we even offered to pay for the postage.  Youwant to blame anyone for the costs, look at th BOD who felt the voice of many owners was not worth sharing with the rest of the owners, yet they could send out a mailing using scare tactics.
> 
> Have a great day.


Actually getting the list doesn't do anything and is at best an interim step and at worst a paper victory.  Trying and failing, which I predict will be the outcome, is simply throwing money away from both sides.  If you're not going to go after Marriott for the entire costs of the project, why bother.  Even getting a completely new BOD accomplishes nothing, IMO.  Thus I see the current posturing as having no real endpoint that is positive for anyone.  If one wants to get serious file a class action lawsuit against Marriott alleging fraud, etc regarding improper sale of a known defective product.  If you do that, all the rest will fall in place if successful.


----------



## ecwinch

Your missing the master strategy:

1) Get owners list
2) Get Allan back on the board
3) Get "transparent board" in place
4) Find proof that the current BoD violated their fiduciary responsibility
5) Overturn the agreement the current BoD likely signed in order for MVCI to pay  for part of the roof replacement
6) Have the "new" board pursue lawsuit against MVCI (funded by owners)

The problem with just going to step #6 is the cost of a class action lawsuit (if Aruba even allows class action lawsuits). They tend to be lengthy legal actions with uncertain outcomes. And you need to negate any existing agreement the BoD made. You can only do that by proving that they could not make an independent decision because of the undue influence of MVCI.


----------



## modoaruba

marksue said:


> rickxylon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obtaining the complete owner list with contact information also seems to now be a dead issue with the overwhelming vote of owners. Pursuing this further through legal means continues to add unnecessary expenses to all owners.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> This case will not end until the list is received.  The vote was based on false information and the method and message used is being presented in the courts.  This is the first step of a multiple step process.  As mentioned previously our attorney is operating on a contingency basis.
> 
> We the concerned owners believe strongly we will prevail in the courts.  The reason we are in the courts is the BOD would not send out the mailing we had asked and we even offered to pay for the postage.  Youwant to blame anyone for the costs, look at th BOD who felt the voice of many owners was not worth sharing with the rest of the owners, yet they could send out a mailing using scare tactics.
> 
> Have a great day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
> Isn't it amazing that all the critics have first hand knowledge from Marriott as to what they are thinking and planning.That the statements they make are indeed factually based.
> I guess Sue was right.That only highly educated,savvy,and smart people have access to this information.
> XXXcuse ME!:annoyed:
Click to expand...


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> This case will not end until the list is received.  The vote was based on false information and the method and message used is being presented in the courts.  This is the first step of a multiple step process.  As mentioned previously our attorney is operating on a contingency basis.
> 
> We the concerned owners believe strongly we will prevail in the courts.  The reason we are in the courts is the BOD would not send out the mailing we had asked and we even offered to pay for the postage.  Youwant to blame anyone for the costs, look at th BOD who felt the voice of many owners was not worth sharing with the rest of the owners, yet they could send out a mailing using scare tactics.
> 
> Have a great day.





modoaruba said:


> Mark,
> 
> Isn't it amazing that all the critics have first hand knowledge from Marriott as to what they are thinking and planning.That the statements they make are indeed factually based.
> I guess Sue was right.That only highly educated,savvy,and smart people have access to this information.
> XXXcuse ME!:annoyed:



This is what I'm talking about when I say that the "concerned owners" group is doing much more harm than good because of their unwillingness to see reason when it's right in front of their faces.  Why is it so much more important to you to be right, than to learn why you might actually be wrong?  I just don't get it.  You're not helping yourselves or any of the MAOC owners by petulantly insisting you are right all the while that Marriott is proving you wrong.

And as long as you're fixating on the "educated, savvy, and smart" words, I'll say it flat-out.  Whoever is guiding you is not educated enough, timeshare-savvy enough, or smart enough to lead you to success if you're defining success as winning against Marriott in Court.  Whether you consider that an insult or not, it's not meant as one.  It's obvious that the person(s) who are offering you legal advice are not anywhere near as competent as Marriott's legal department, which has and will continue to run circles around you while you're stumbling at the gate.


----------



## tlwmkw

Modo,

If someone offers constructive criticism you don't need to act so put out.  Sue is giving you good advice.  You imply that she is working for Marriott and that is not so, she just sees things as they are and not just from one perspective.  You constantly say that Marriott is listening and monitoring this site- has it occurred to you that they could just as easily join the "private" concerned owners site and monitor that also?   The company, and their staff and sales people, own many units at the Ocean Club too and I'm sure they are just as concerned (though perhaps in a different way).  How do you know that they aren't monitoring that too?  I'm actually only kidding saying that, but it's about as absurd as some of the other conspiracy theories that you are throwing out.  At this point I think many of the owners have probably heard about your crusade just by word of mouth, as well as from other sources.

tlwmkw


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> This case will not end until the list is received.  The vote was based on false information and the method and message used is being presented in the courts.  This is the first step of a multiple step process.  As mentioned previously our attorney is operating on a contingency basis.
> 
> We the concerned owners believe strongly we will prevail in the courts.  The reason we are in the courts is the BOD would not send out the mailing we had asked and we even offered to pay for the postage.  Youwant to blame anyone for the costs, look at th BOD who felt the voice of many owners was not worth sharing with the rest of the owners, yet they could send out a mailing using scare tactics.
> 
> Have a great day.



Here's another example of how you are allowing your victim mentality to cloud your judgment:

Marriott did with that mailing what any company would do if they're in the same situation of being challenged by owners/stockholders.  If you're not familiar with that standard practice, whenever a vote is required the company is mandated to send to each owner a notice of the vote/action date, place and time, a copy of the exact amendment/rule as it will be written into the governing docs, and a proxy form and instructions for absentee voting.  Usually the cover letter explains each of the enclosures as well as the company's opinion of the matter up for vote, including whatever reasonable future ramifications the vote results may cause.

It sounds like what you expect Marriott to do is what is required when a vote is put forward in a county/state/federal government arena, where it's mandated that pro and con opinions of the issue be presented on a ballot.  That's not what is required in a business setting and it's unreasonable to expect it of Marriott.  The company isn't required to offer any explanation at all of the vote issue, but naturally most will present the best/worst scenario to strengthen their pro/con position.  

You call it scare tactics but it really is meant to be a logical reasoning to educate the owners/stockholders as best they can to the company's position on the issue, and why the company believes passage will be good or bad for the owners.  And in this case, Marriott's opinion in that letter was logical!  Do you deny that if the amendment had passed as it was written, Marriott would have no control over how owners' contact information could be used at any point in the future?

Once more, your problem isn't that Marriott is doing something unethical or illegal here - what they did is SOP.  Your problem is that you're not paying a competent attorney to take complete control of the actions that are needed for you to be successful.  While Allan was busy drumming up support for and putting his version of the bylaw amendment (that would have limited contact information to only owners for specific purposes) on your website, in this thread on TUG and every other place except in a competent attorney's hands, Marriott was able to jump in ahead of him to put their version (which had broader scope and thus could have been more open to abuse) of the amendment up for a vote.  That's the strategy Marriott has followed throughout this ordeal, and your ineffective posturing is making it easy for them.

Get proactive!  As long as this is costing all of the owners good money anyway, let the "concerned owners" put their money where their mouths are and ante up the money to hire a lawyer who will be honest enough to tell you what you can (and cannot!) reasonably expect from Marriott, and how s/he can go about getting it for you.  Forget this "contingency" thing that's not working.  It's long past time.


----------



## Zac495

tlwmkw said:


> Suedonj,
> 
> You are absolutely right.  This is just going to get more and more expensive if the lawsuits continue.  The irony is that the concerned owners are really suing themselves since they are owners at the resort and the board was elected by them to represent them.  So they'll be paying the concerned owners lawyers as well as the AOC's lawyers via their maintenance fees- how can they possibly win in this case?  If I owned there I would be starting to get upset at the extra expense they are putting on all the other owners.
> 
> As to the accounting firms I agree with you there too- after what happened with Enron and Arthur Andersen in recent years I don't think they would "look the other way" and allow MVCI to do anything that wasn't legal.  It's not in the interest of the accountant to take any risk in this.  What benefit would it be to them?  None.  As you say there is a huge amount of distrust between the two sides and no sign of anyone meeting in the middle.  I think getting out is the best option for those that don't like it.  They bought a Marriott resort and if they don't like how it's run then they should vote with their feet and leave.  I remember Ellen sold her week there after all this came about.  She still likes MVCI but not so much the AOC.
> 
> tlwmkw



Yup - love Aruba and  Marriott, but I am so, so glad I sold my week. I wish only the best for all owners - and hope to rent from one of them in the next year or two.


----------



## JimIg23

can anyone give us a small summary of what is going on?  Was a lawsuit filed?


----------



## lovearuba

*Yes*



rickxylon said:


> And you always tell the truth, right?


 
I would say I am a very honest person who was very loyal to Marriott and lost faith in their Brand name because of my personal experiences and believe it or not I sincerely believe that Sue and Eric support Marriott because they do not have the same experiences as I do.  I also understand that some owners may be concerned that the actions to challenge Marriott will cost them money and I do believe they should voice their concerns directly to Allan because he will hear them, he is a reasonable person and those concerns will also be heard. 

So in answer to your question, I am an honest person, although I did tell my kids there was a Santa Claus and an Easter Bunny so I guess there are sometimes where I stretch the truth.:whoopie: :whoopie: :whoopie: :whoopie:


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> I would say I am a very honest person who was very loyal to Marriott and lost faith in their Brand name because of my personal experiences and believe it or not I sincerely believe that Sue and Eric support Marriott because they do not have the same experiences as I do.  I also understand that some owners may be concerned that the actions to challenge Marriott will cost them money and I do believe they should voice their concerns directly to Allan because he will hear them, he is a reasonable person and those concerns will also be heard.
> 
> So in answer to your question, I am an honest person, although I did tell my kids there was a Santa Claus and an Easter Bunny so I guess there are sometimes where I stretch the truth.:whoopie: :whoopie: :whoopie: :whoopie:



That is the funny thing about this discussion. You see anyone who does not support the "crusade" as supporting Marriott. 

If we truly supported Marriott, why would any of us bother to offer any constructive comments that might improve the effectiveness of your "crusade". Why would I offer to review your by-laws? Why would any of those that you view as being "pro-Marriott" do anything besides telling you to pack it in?

The only thing I oppose is the biased and slanted way that your group has attempted to use TUG to influence owners to join the crusade. If opposing the manipulation of the truth makes me "Pro-Marriott", then so be it. I personally think you should not  complain about how the BoD behaves, when your group uses the same or worse tactics to achieve their goals.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> I would say I am a very honest person who was very loyal to Marriott and lost faith in their Brand name because of my personal experiences and believe it or not I sincerely believe that Sue and Eric support Marriott because they do not have the same experiences as I do. ...



I can't speak for Eric but I find this all very frustrating because no matter how many times I've tried to explain what I'm thinking, some members of the "concerned owners" group just don't try to comprehend what I write here.  (Like I said, I'm not speaking for Eric here, but I do see while reading here how other critics might feel the same way I do.)

None of what I've posted here has been blind support of Marriott, and I don't have any loyalty to Marriott (although I do love my Marriott weeks.)  In my opinion, the only difference between your ownership, Lovearuba, and mine, is that I didn't allow Marriott salespeople or any other employee to tell me what I purchased.  I read the documents to learn exactly what my rights and Marriott's are.

My criticisms here of the "concerned owners" group's actions aren't meant to be blind support of Marriott, they are meant to be exactly what they appear to be - criticisms of your actions.  And like Eric says, they've been made to help you focus on reasonable expectations so that you can achieve whatever success might be possible.  Because even though I am not an MAOC owner, I am an MVCI owner and I think it's important for owners to get exactly what they're entitled to.  Nothing less, of course, but just as importantly nothing more.


----------



## marksue

*Marriott Dropped from most Ethical company*

This was just sent to me - 

*Marriott dropped from 2010 most ethical companies* - they were on in 2009.  

DROPPED FROM TOP 100 IN 2010:
Marriott International (MAR.N)


2010 World’s Most Ethical Companies
 The World’s Most Ethical Companies designation recognizes companies that truly go beyond making statements about doing business “ethically” and translate those words into action. WME honorees demonstrate real and sustained ethical leadership within their industries, putting into real business practice the Institute’s credo of “Good. Smart. Business. Profit.”
There is no set number of companies that make the list each year. Rather, the World’s Most Ethical Company designation is awarded to those companies that have leading ethics and compliance programs, particularly as compared to their industry peers. This year, there are 100 World’s Most Ethical Companies. Of these companies, 26 are new to the list in 2010 and 24 companies dropped off from the 2009 list. These “drop offs” generally occurred because of litigation and ethics violations, as well as increased competition from within their industry.
IT CAN PAY TO BE ETHICAL
Investing in ethics is beneficial for any company, even in a recession. The below graph compares the “WME Index,” or all publicly traded 2010 World’s Most Ethical Company honorees, against the S&P 500 and FTSE since 2005.

MEDIA RESPONSIBILITY REPORT
For the first time, in concert with the announcement of the 2010 World’s Most Ethical Companies, Ethisphere has published its first annual Media Responsibility Report. This report discloses the methodologies, editorial approach and financial relationships behind the generation of the annual World’s Most Ethical Companies list.
The 2010 Ethisphere Media Responsibility Report can be found here.
2010 WORLD’S MOST ETHICAL COMPANY SELECTION PROCESS:
1. The Methodology
A methodology committee of leading attorneys, professors, government officials and organization leaders, assisted Ethisphere in creating the scoring methodology for the World’s Most Ethical Companies awards.
2. Candidate Selection
Over the course of the year, companies across the world submitted their applications to become 2010 World’s Most Ethical Companies. Based on these applications, as well as information Ethisphere gathered throughout the year, a list of semi-finalists was created.
3. In-Depth Analysis
At this stage, semi-finalist companies were notified and given an in-depth survey questionnaire to fill out regarding their ethics and compliance program, governance and corporate responsibility.
4. Further Refinement
Ethisphere then conducted data analysis on hundreds of companies based on their responses to the survey, as well as documents and information researched and requested by Ethisphere to confirm survey responses. Every company was then given an EQ score based on the results of the survey and measured against seven distinct categories. These categories were Corporate Citizenship and Responsibility; Corporate Governance; Innovation that Contributes to the Public Well Being; Industry leadership; Executive Leadership and Tone from the Top; Legal, Regulatory and Reputation Track Record; and Internal Systems and Ethics/Compliance Program.


----------



## DB-Wis

Just when I thought this thread had FINALLY come to a long (long, long) overdue demise, we get another posting . . .


----------



## rickxylon

:deadhorse: 





DB-Wis said:


> Just when I thought this thread had FINALLY come to a long (long, long) overdue demise, we get another posting . . .


----------



## SueDonJ

Here's the link related to Marksue's notice, if anyone's interested.

Aside from that, I hope this thread doesn't just die without some kind of wrap-up.  I'm interested to know the final outcome when all is said and done.


----------



## rickxylon

Based on the list of companies in each industry it looks like a lot of good and profitable companies did not make the list either. Should we draw the same conclusions about them that marksue is implying should be drawn about Marriott?


----------



## modoaruba

Annual meeting is May 21 I think.
Wonder if they got approval for taping it.
Surely there after there will be a cache of information that will be fully disected and discussed and interpreted in infinite directions from all of our great minds to finally come up with a unanimous conclusion that the world is either round or flat but there is always a breeze in Aruba.
(take the word breeze in any way you want).

Sue,you wanted to keep it alive.So there's my 2 cents
Just saying HI.


----------



## SueDonJ

HI!  Hey Modo, your team sure is something to see this year, so far.  Can't say it was any fun to watch this past weekend.   

And it isn't that I don't want this whole situation with your resort to end - I've said throughout the thread that I'm hoping it ends with the best possible resolution for the resort, ALL owners, and MVCI.  Sadly, that doesn't mean that ALL owners will be happy with the outcome, although I hope you'll all still at least be able to enjoy your vacations.

What I don't want is for this thread to end without any notice at all of the resolution.  Some of us non-owners have invested a good bit of time and knowledge here; I hope the owners will let us know how it all turns out.


----------



## lovearuba

*hi modo*



modoaruba said:


> Annual meeting is May 21 I think.
> Wonder if they got approval for taping it.
> Surely there after there will be a cache of information that will be fully disected and discussed and interpreted in infinite directions from all of our great minds to finally come up with a unanimous conclusion that the world is either round or flat but there is always a breeze in Aruba.
> (take the word breeze in any way you want).
> 
> Sue,you wanted to keep it alive.So there's my 2 cents
> Just saying HI.



Yankee fan?  oh well, our sox will rebound, maybe in another 86 years.  No to the taping question, not surprised though.  The world is round I hear but there is not always a breeze in Aruba and I have heard the beep on the angry horn.


----------



## modoaruba

It's either having a good team or paying down some of the national debt with all those salaries.So,we got a good team,so far.Thanks for noticing.

Other than that,my vacations in Aruba will NEVER be a let down due to the current state of the world and other suches(is that a word?) no matter what the outcome.

Life's too short. So-whatever.

Nice hearing from you.


----------



## Dean

marksue said:


> This was just sent to me -
> 
> *Marriott dropped from 2010 most ethical companies* - they were on in 2009.
> 
> DROPPED FROM TOP 100 IN 2010:
> Marriott International (MAR.N)
> 
> 
> 2010 World’s Most Ethical Companies
> The World’s Most Ethical Companies designation recognizes companies that truly go beyond making statements about doing business “ethically” and translate those words into action. WME honorees demonstrate real and sustained ethical leadership within their industries, putting into real business practice the Institute’s credo of “Good. Smart. Business. Profit.”
> There is no set number of companies that make the list each year. Rather, the World’s Most Ethical Company designation is awarded to those companies that have leading ethics and compliance programs, particularly as compared to their industry peers. This year, there are 100 World’s Most Ethical Companies. Of these companies, 26 are new to the list in 2010 and 24 companies dropped off from the 2009 list. These “drop offs” generally occurred because of litigation and ethics violations, as well as increased competition from within their industry.
> IT CAN PAY TO BE ETHICAL
> Investing in ethics is beneficial for any company, even in a recession. The below graph compares the “WME Index,” or all publicly traded 2010 World’s Most Ethical Company honorees, against the S&P 500 and FTSE since 2005.
> 
> MEDIA RESPONSIBILITY REPORT
> For the first time, in concert with the announcement of the 2010 World’s Most Ethical Companies, Ethisphere has published its first annual Media Responsibility Report. This report discloses the methodologies, editorial approach and financial relationships behind the generation of the annual World’s Most Ethical Companies list.
> The 2010 Ethisphere Media Responsibility Report can be found here.
> 2010 WORLD’S MOST ETHICAL COMPANY SELECTION PROCESS:
> 1. The Methodology
> A methodology committee of leading attorneys, professors, government officials and organization leaders, assisted Ethisphere in creating the scoring methodology for the World’s Most Ethical Companies awards.
> 2. Candidate Selection
> Over the course of the year, companies across the world submitted their applications to become 2010 World’s Most Ethical Companies. Based on these applications, as well as information Ethisphere gathered throughout the year, a list of semi-finalists was created.
> 3. In-Depth Analysis
> At this stage, semi-finalist companies were notified and given an in-depth survey questionnaire to fill out regarding their ethics and compliance program, governance and corporate responsibility.
> 4. Further Refinement
> Ethisphere then conducted data analysis on hundreds of companies based on their responses to the survey, as well as documents and information researched and requested by Ethisphere to confirm survey responses. Every company was then given an EQ score based on the results of the survey and measured against seven distinct categories. These categories were Corporate Citizenship and Responsibility; Corporate Governance; Innovation that Contributes to the Public Well Being; Industry leadership; Executive Leadership and Tone from the Top; Legal, Regulatory and Reputation Track Record; and Internal Systems and Ethics/Compliance Program.


I don't think one can read anything into this.  Those type of lists are fairly subjective.  One would have to have the ratings and specific info that went in to the score to make any deductions.  Marriott was the only one on the list last year.


----------



## marksue

*No to the taping*

Frank Knox, the AOC boards’ illustrious president, who backed into being reelected by Marriott voting their shares against the owners, will not allow taping of the meeting because he said he works for a bank.


----------



## timeos2

marksue said:


> Frank Knox, the AOC boards’ illustrious president, who backed into being reelected by Marriott voting their shares against the owners, will not allow taping of the meeting because he said he works for a bank.



Why do I see this dastardly image when reading this "information"? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Curses! Foiled again!


----------



## modoaruba

marksue said:


> Frank Knox, the AOC boards’ illustrious president, who backed into being reelected by Marriott voting their shares against the owners, will not allow taping of the meeting because he said he works for a bank.



Aren't bank execs being taped in front of congressional inquisitions for all to see?
I am sure the numbers of those who would watch any taping of our board meetings wouldn't make it by any means to be considered by Gallup on a top to watch list.
He could wear a mask or not be taped himself.If that was the real reason for not allowing taping it is pure BS.
Anyone attending would know who he is and have ample opportunity to photograph him at some point.Get real.
Besides.It's not the bank that needs the bailout here 
. It's the owners.


----------



## marksue

*Recap letter to Arne Sorenson after shreholders meeting*

Dear Arne,

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to chat after Friday's 2010 Marriott International annual meeting and I am sure you are just about out of patience with this matter, but you must realize that thousands of Marriott Aruba Ocean Club Concerned Owners are, too. 

A few comments made during and after the meeting continue to raise the question of ethics, transparency and unfair tactics.  To that point, I was very unhappy to also be informed at the annual meeting that Marriott International who in 2007, 2008 and 2009 was listed is no longer included in the 2010 Ethisphere Institute's List of the World's Most Ethical Companies.  I now wish to comment on statements made:

1. Mr. Marriott stated he was "unaware"  of the successful efforts of MVCI executive staff to have our notice removed from Aruba Today newspaper.  MVCI senior staff confirmed this in court, but denied this fact to the owners at our special meeting in January. What other gaps of information have been withheld by senior MVCI executives? 

2. You stated that "you have written some heavy checks at the resort including paying for windows", but owner trust and confidence cannot be bought.  Yes, you have paid for a number of items, but you have never told the owners the complete story.  The Owners expected a 1st class resort with a brand new building.  During my term of 6+ years as President and Board member, owners paid huge sums for the repairs and maintenance of a building (including atrium windows a few years ago) that now is known to have had major issues inherited from earlier construction. a fact that was never disclosed to the Owners.  Although every dollar that you fund and have funded is appreciated, many of the problems continue and funding is not the most pertinent issue here.  Rather, the most pertinent issues center around the actions and ethics of MVCI management to prevent full disclosure and transparency to the Owners who are rightfully entitled to this critical information.

3. Mr. Marriott’s statement that: "talking to MVCI is talking to Marriott International"  is so unfortunate. He asked if I had heard from Mr. Weisz personally about this -- the answer is "No".   How you can continue to rely on this division’s actions when the shocking tactics of a few senior MVCI staff is causing a negative ripple effect within MI and will not go away.   Some very simple math using extremely conservative numbers will show the ripple effect:  If 1000 owners who stayed at Marriott Hotels & Resorts (not Vacation Clubs) at least 7 nights per year at a rate of $200 per night stopped staying, the loss to Marriott International would be $1.4 million dollars, not including the revenue from incidentals.  Based upon the number of inquiries received from owners at other MVCI properties, the Marriott Aruba Ocean Club is only the tip of the iceberg.  I personally believe that if a person like William Love was still at MVCI we would not be in this situation. 
4. You stated that "you have read hundreds of letters from our Concerned Owners and spent many hours being briefed by MVCI and did not know what else you could do"; and yes as you stated there are certainly some "gray areas" .  You should allow for neutral oversight of the actions of MVCI.  We have offered many times our willingness to meet.  We cannot understand your refusal to work together with us constructively in productive partnership to resolve these issues for our mutual benefit. 
5. You stated that: "Marriott voted for me when I was first elected to the Board".  While that is an accurate statement, did MVCI disclose that my election was to a Developers Controlled Board since Marriott owned the majority of the shares?  MVCI openly and very proudly stated to me each year that after the Owners took majority control, they would never vote their shares against the owners’ interest.  And they did not - until last year when the owners overwhelming voted against the current President, and MVCI voted to overrule that decision.      
6. Mr. Marriott stated that during his visits to Aruba this year he had "met with owners who were very pleased and the Guest Satisfaction Score (GSS) is over 90%".  Unfortunately, GSS measures a specific vacation week for renters as well as owners and there is no Owner Satisfaction Score (OSS) that measures owner expectations, perceived value and confidence in MVCI management.  You are probably unaware that prior to Mr Marriott's visit MVCI informed me and the concerned owners that his visit had been canceled and he would not be on the island, so that we could not meet; and then when he did arrive they took owners off the property by calling a special owners meeting for concerned owners in the hotel, as a diversion during his walk through of the Ocean Club.

7. You stated that "84% of the owners had voted against my efforts" (a) that is 84% of the 37% of owners who actually voted, or in other words 31%). (b) These are not “my” actions but actions taken on behalf of over 1000 Concerned Owners, with 30 owners representing 14 states and 2 countries signing on directly, seeking owner to owner contact. (c) The statements made to the owners -- that the court ordered the special meeting and the proposed amendment which required the spending of over $100,000 of owners funds and more in Marriott corporate funds -- are not true, as MVCI executive staff are fully aware.  The amendment as drafted with oversight of MVCI senior staff would allow the Owner Register to include addresses, making it available to the public and as they stated to potential telemarketers.  That is not what the court ordered and not what we had requested or would support.  (I have complete documentation to back my statements; additionally, we are well aware of what is done at the Marriott Grand Chateau in Las Vegas or the Marriott Custom House in Boston.)   We even offered to allow MVCI to just send out the “Concerned Owners notice” on our behalf, to all owners, without giving us access to the list; and they refused.  Why is MVCI so afraid of owner to owner contact specifically on Ocean Club business matters, an attitude and position that has at the very least the appearance of impropriety and willfully misleading the owners, and for what purpose ? 
.
As I get ready to leave for the Aruba annual meeting, I only wish you could be a fly on the wall and observe the actions of your MVCI staff.  I can only hope that with their paid parliamentarian MVCI will not seize control of the owners meeting and use their votes against the owners’ interests yet again.  
The Concerned Owners are ready to move forward in a positive way and I believe that we can resolve these issues and rebuild faith in the Marriott brand.


----------



## griffer331

Marksue,

I have a question.  Did you draft this letter or did Alan Cohen?  The letter makes mention of serving 6 years on the board.



> 7. You stated that "84% of the owners had voted against my efforts" (a) that is 84% of the 37% of owners who actually voted, or in other words 31%).



If my math is right that means that 16% of the 37% backs the concerned owners or 2.2% of all owners. If my math is wrong please let me know.  In my humble opinon that seems like a very low total of all owners.


As an owner of 2 weeks at the Ocean Club, I have been following this thread from the get go.  I believe you have accomplished your goal of transparency as we are getting updates regularly from the board and I am very concerned about the added cost of defending a lawsuit.  Just my two cents on this.


----------



## marksue

This is ALan's recap.  Sorry I thought I had cut and psted his name at the end.  THe concerned owners represent almost 20% of all the weeks.  The reason fo rthe lawsuit is to get the name and addresses of all owners to share with them both sides and not jsut Marriott's side.  The board and MVCI sent out a proxy based on a bunch of lies and they knew it.  They just tried to scare the pwjers to not allow thier names to be released.

We had offered to have them send out our letters and we would pay the cost and they said no.  So we have no other choice then to go to court and have the board and MVCI waste our money.


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> This is ALan's recap.  Sorry I thought I had cut and psted his name at the end.  THe concerned owners represent almost 20% of all the weeks.  The reason fo rthe lawsuit is to get the name and addresses of all owners to share with them both sides and not jsut Marriott's side.  The board and MVCI sent out a proxy based on a bunch of lies and they knew it.  They just tried to scare the pwjers to not allow thier names to be released.
> 
> We had offered to have them send out our letters and we would pay the cost and they said no.  So we have no other choice then to go to court and have the board and MVCI waste our money.



Respectfully, MVCI is not wasting money and you do have another choice.  MVCI has no choice but to respond to challenges from minority ownership groups but you can choose to drop the lawsuit which is costing ALL owners in real dollars as well as a significant erosion of the MVCI/MAOC owner relationship.

Of course to make that choice you first need to recognize that the owners who have not joined your efforts are not as ignorant as you continue to insinuate they are.  The truth is that ALL owners have received the exact same multiple detailed communications from MVCI, the MAOC GM and the MAOC BOD.  And for whatever reasons, the majority MAOC ownership haven't looked at that info as suspect or worthy of searching out dissatisfied owners - proof of that is the fact that they've not taken the same routes to this thread and your website that every "concerned owner" has.  By virtue of the voter turnout for that last Special Meeting, they also have plainly said that they do not wish to be force-fed information from any entity other than Marriott.  Isn't it possible that the majority ownership who has NOT joined your efforts, recognizes that the increased fees were necessary to overcome the previous boards' shortcomings in maintaining the resort standard?  Isn't is possible that they've done their own research and come to the conclusion that as owners they bear the financial responsibility for their resort regardless of past history, and that they appreciate Marriott's contributions which have been over and above what is required of the management company?


----------



## tlwmkw

Susan,

I agree with you.  There is always a choice not to sue and attempt to find a solution that works for everyone instead.  The transparency issue seems to have been resolved since MVCI is clearly explaining everything they do now so what are the goals of this group?  They have never really said and I have to think that they don't really know themselves. 

Marksue,

You said that the Concerned owners represent 20% of the weeks at the AOC- if that is so why were they not concerned enough to vote in the election?  There seems to be a little confusion there- if only 37% voted and 84% of those were against then where were the concerned owners votes?  You can't say that they were fooled by the bogus proxy because they knew exactly what you were trying to achieve.

tlwmkw


----------



## rickxylon

marksue said:


> This is ALan's recap.  Sorry I thought I had cut and psted his name at the end.  THe concerned owners represent almost 20% of all the weeks.  The reason fo rthe lawsuit is to get the name and addresses of all owners to share with them both sides and not jsut Marriott's side.  The board and MVCI sent out a proxy based on a bunch of lies and they knew it.  They just tried to scare the pwjers to not allow thier names to be released.
> 
> We had offered to have them send out our letters and we would pay the cost and they said no.  So we have no other choice then to go to court and have the board and MVCI waste our money.



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

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


----------



## SueDonJ

marksue said:


> Frank Knox, the AOC boards’ illustrious president, who backed into being reelected by Marriott voting their shares against the owners, will not allow taping of the meeting because he said he works for a bank.



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

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

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


----------



## rickxylon

SueDonJ said:


> Respectfully, MVCI is not wasting money and you do have another choice.  MVCI has no choice but to respond to challenges from minority ownership groups but you can choose to drop the lawsuit which is costing ALL owners in real dollars as well as a significant erosion of the MVCI/MAOC owner relationship.
> 
> Of course to make that choice you first need to recognize that the owners who have not joined your efforts are not as ignorant as you continue to insinuate they are.  The truth is that ALL owners have received the exact same multiple detailed communications from MVCI, the MAOC GM and the MAOC BOD.  And for whatever reasons, the majority MAOC ownership haven't looked at that info as suspect or worthy of searching out dissatisfied owners - proof of that is the fact that they've not taken the same routes to this thread and your website that every "concerned owner" has.  By virtue of the voter turnout for that last Special Meeting, they also have plainly said that they do not wish to be force-fed information from any entity other than Marriott.  Isn't it possible that the majority ownership who has NOT joined your efforts, recognizes that the increased fees were necessary to overcome the previous boards' shortcomings in maintaining the resort standard?  Isn't is possible that they've done their own research and come to the conclusion that as owners they bear the financial responsibility for their resort regardless of past history, and that they appreciate Marriott's contributions which have been over and above what is required of the management company?



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


----------



## SueDonJ

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


----------



## lovearuba

*Perceptions*



SueDonJ said:


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



Funny, I thought it was your board


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> Funny, I thought it was your board



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

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


----------



## griffer331

Maksue,


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


----------



## jimf41

jimf41 said:


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



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


----------



## modoaruba

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


----------



## Dave M

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


----------



## Stefa

griffer331 said:


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



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

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


----------



## SueDonJ

jimf41 said:


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



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

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


----------



## Fredm

SueDonJ said:


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



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

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


----------



## SueDonJ

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

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


----------



## Fredm

SueDonJ said:


> Thanks, Fred.  This is a new laptop and I can't figure out how to d/l the player yet but I'll keep working at it.
> 
> Marksue's post reprinting Allan's letter includes a few items (1, 3 and 6) referencing his exchange with Mr. Marriott at  the annual meeting - perhaps the exchange you heard is what Allan was talking about?



Yes, the OC owner was Allan Cohen.

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


----------



## modoaruba

Dave M said:


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



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

It's amazing how this thread is still alive


----------



## jimf41

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

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

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


----------



## dioxide45

jimf41 said:


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



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


----------



## qlaval

*Notes from the AOC Annual Meeting: May 21, 2010*

ARUBA OCEAN CLUB CONCERNED OWNERS

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

ACTIVITY REPORT FOR 2010 ARUBA OCEAN CLUB ANNUAL MEETING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## qlaval

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.  Motion to approve the agenda  6178 for  1382 against 

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

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

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

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

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

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


Some additional highlights from the meeting.

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

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

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


----------



## qlaval

A Brighter Outlook ? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


----------



## rickxylon

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

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


----------



## lovearuba

*seems like a reasonable request*



rickxylon said:


> I don't know how the AOC board would describe the meeting, but it seems only fair for someone to post the meeting minutes here when they are available. Paul Harvey might describe this as "the rest of the story".
> 
> Otherwise all that will be available to everyone is one person's view. With both "sides" relating their story of the meeting, we should be able to get a better picture of what actually went on.



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


----------



## modoaruba

rickxylon said:


> I don't know how the AOC board would describe the meeting, but it seems only fair for someone to post the meeting minutes here when they are available. Paul Harvey might describe this as "the rest of the story".
> 
> Otherwise all that will be available to everyone is one person's view. With both "sides" relating their story of the meeting, we should be able to get a better picture of what actually went on.



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


----------



## timeos2

*The best news is the meeting*

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

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


----------



## jlf58

I would love to see someone sue Marksue for wasting the HOA's money. Now that's something owners can get behind LOL. To be serious, it's one thing wasting your own money but when you waste other people money, they tend to get angry. In this case, Marksue and his group won't win the battle or the war.


----------



## SueDonJ

Fletch said:


> I would love to see someone sue Marksue for wasting the HOA's money. Now that's something owners can get behind LOL. To be serious, it's one thing wasting your own money but when you waste other people money, they tend to get angry. In this case, Marksue and his group won't win the battle or the war.



Yep, I said it a long time ago - if I was an MAOC owner, I'd hire my own competent attorney to see if there is any way possible to challenge the costs forced on all owners for this minority ownership group's ineffective and uninformed challenges to the BOD.  It just does not seem fair that the entire ownership base is being penalized with additional fees to cover the defense which had to be mounted by the BOD in response to these challenges, especially because a review of the governing documents by a competent attorney before the challenges should have prevented most of the group's actions before they were taken.

To be fair, though, I don't believe that marksue deserves to be the sole focus.  Unless marksue's posts here are not to be taken at face value, it's apparent from them that Allan Cohen is the leader of these efforts and that Allan misused and abused his former position on the MAOC board to expand the "concerned owners" membership in support of his agenda.  So if you're going to go after only one person, that's who I'd choose.  But then again, I wouldn't stop at only one - I'd be looking to make every self-proclaimed "concerned owner" share the responsibility for these mounting legal fees.


----------



## Dean

Fletch said:


> I would love to see someone sue Marksue for wasting the HOA's money. Now that's something owners can get behind LOL. To be serious, it's one thing wasting your own money but when you waste other people money, they tend to get angry. In this case, Marksue and his group won't win the battle or the war.


I think Allan is the one who is on the hot seat here.  I think he has risk from the other owners, the resort itslelf and Marriott.  Only time will tell whether he's a martyr or a zealot though IMO, in the absence of proof of the former, the later will be the designation bacically guilty unless provent innocent.


----------



## lovearuba

*Happy Memorial Day All*

Take time out to enjoy the holiday, its a beautiful weekend here.


----------



## LUVourMarriotts

When you all travel to Aruba, is it tough to NOT spend your time looking at all the other guests and think, "i wonder if that man/woman posted to this thread"?

"One Happpy Island" may turn into "One Paranoid Island" for some.


----------



## SueDonJ

LUVourMarriotts said:


> When you all travel to Aruba, is it tough to NOT spend your time looking at all the other guests and think, "i wonder if that man/woman posted to this thread"?
> 
> "One Happpy Island" may turn into "One Paranoid Island" for some.



I chat a lot with folks at the resorts about how much fun we owners are having and the places we've all exchanged to, but have asked only four or five specifically if they participate on TUG - haven't met a TUGger yet.  But if we ever exchange to MAOC, you can bet I won't be wearing a nametag.  I think we non-owners in this thread would be tied to a raft and floated down Surf Club's lazy river never to be seen again!


----------



## jlf58

Fair enough. 2 people should be in the lawsuit. keep in mind, I don't know them as people. This is about buisness and as far as I am concerned, if I was a Ocean Club owner, the damange they are doing to the resort both financially and publicity wise, should be lawsuit worthy. They don't speak for a majority of the owners. 





Dean said:


> I think Allan is the one who is on the hot seat here.  I think he has risk from the other owners, the resort itslelf and Marriott.  Only time will tell whether he's a martyr or a zealot though IMO, in the absence of proof of the former, the later will be the designation bacically guilty unless provent innocent.


----------



## modoaruba

It's not the concerned group that asked anyone for contributions to go for a law suit. It was the board that decided to spend the money on legal fees.
It was their way of dealing with the situation instead of having an open meeting with the group until now.Which was one of the results of the last meeting this month.
Anyone has a right in our system to sue anyone.This costs money,especially by the defense.As a result,the consumer pays a higher price for products originating from the parent company that was sued.
The expenses were not necessary and IMO was used by the board to create this smoke and mirrors to pin one side against the other which is what is happening at this point on this thread.It's an old political ploy.
To say that the suer should be sued would already have been done by Marriottt and /or the board if the issues brought up by the group were without merrit IMO.It's easier to squash a potential full blown public exposure by pursuing of the least harmful of issues which happens to be the obtaining of the list of owners by the group.Since the scare tactic to the owners was that they would get telemarketers calling didn't work too well and actually aided in growing the group,the money issue was used.
Even though the group is a minority,it has impressive numbers and bite.


But,as a result of all this,a meeting is finally coming between the two that if ocurred in the begining would have spared the owners the extra expenses and negative publicity.
I am just viewing both sides in this analysis as I see it.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> It's not the concerned group that asked anyone for contributions to go for a law suit. It was the board that decided to spend the money on legal fees.
> It was their way of dealing with the situation instead of having an open meeting with the group until now.Which was one of the results of the last meeting this month.
> Anyone has a right in our system to sue anyone.This costs money,especially by the defense.As a result,the consumer pays a higher price for products originating from the parent company that was sued.
> The expenses were not necessary and IMO was used by the board to create this smoke and mirrors to pin one side against the other which is what is happening at this point on this thread.It's an old political ploy.
> To say that the suer should be sued would already have been done by Marriottt and /or the board if the issues brought up by the group were without merrit IMO.It's easier to squash a potential full blown public exposure by pursuing of the least harmful of issues which happens to be the obtaining of the list of owners by the group.Since the scare tactic to the owners was that they would get telemarketers calling didn't work too well and actually aided in growing the group,the money issue was used.
> Even though the group is a minority,it has impressive numbers and bite.
> 
> 
> But,as a result of all this,a meeting is finally coming between the two that if ocurred in the begining would have spared the owners the extra expenses and negative publicity.
> I am just viewing both sides in this analysis as I see it.


It was the group that put the BOD in the position of feeling they needed to take those steps.  It was predictable that this would happen just like it's predictable that things will end up around where we started, with Marriott paying roughly half of the costs and the group claiming victory over minor gains at best.


----------



## modoaruba

IMO,the BOD and Marriott did not know the extent and commitment of the pursuit by the group and under estimated it's survival and growth.Now comes some political back pedaling and if done properly both sides will feel some win and some loss.
Hopefully the end result will be some return to a status quo


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> IMO,the BOD and Marriott did not know the extent and commitment of the pursuit by the group and under estimated it's survival and growth.Now comes some political back pedaling and if done properly both sides will feel some win and some loss.
> Hopefully the end result will be some return to a status quo



A review of Allan's postings here and the official documents on the MAOC page at my-vacationclub.com leaves the impression that the only concession Marriott has made to the group is the possibility of a future meeting/discussion.  Not one other of Allan's or the group's demands have been met.  I guess that could be considered a win of some sort because they've not agreed to a meeting prior to this, but what exactly can be expected from that meeting?

The best I can see is that Marriott may agree to another Special Meeting to put forth an amended provision regarding access to the owners' contact information, similar to the one that Allan proposed earlier which limits that access to owners for specific purposes.  Marriott certainly can't overrule the bylaws (that don't allow owners' email and residence addresses to be released,) and they can't overrule the voting results of the last Special Meeting (whereby their broad-scope provision amendment was defeated,) but they probably can put forth for a vote another amendment.  With that, though, the "concerned owners" must still abide by the majority ownership vote results and the possibility remains that any amendment may not pass.  (I know that as an MVCI owner, I would not vote in favor of any amendment which loosened the privacy restrictions of my contact information.)

Other than that possibility, what gains are there to be had by a meeting between Marriott et al and the "concerned owners" group?  This is the question that's been asked repeatedly throughout all the months that this thread has existed, and there's never been an answer.  MAOC owners have received more detailed communications about their resort than any other MVCI resort, so the "transparency" issue seems to be resolved.  As well, MAOC owners have received more financial relief than is required from Marriott towards their resort's maintenance costs.

What concessions do you "concerned owners" want from Marriott, and what makes you think that you have a right to them?


----------



## modoaruba

What bothers me the most about the meetings is the way the voting is conducted.
A true majority vote of owners would have selected the other two candidates.
Here we see that the proxies were not qualified and that Marriotts 1500 votes did.
I am not saying here which way I personally would have voted,but shows me that as an owner my vote does not matter.THIS bothers me.
Even if I did want the winners to win,I did not want it done in the matter that it was done.
It's quite insulting to say the least.
Hope and Change-REALLY!?


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> What bothers me the most about the meetings is the way the voting is conducted.
> A true majority vote of owners would have selected the other two candidates.
> Here we see that the proxies were not qualified and that Marriotts 1500 votes did.
> I am not saying here which way I personally would have voted,but shows me that as an owner my vote does not matter.THIS bothers me.
> Even if I did want the winners to win,I did not want it done in the matter that it was done.
> It's quite insulting to say the least.
> Hope and Change-REALLY!?


As was discussed earlier in this thread, Marriott owns those units and has the right to vote them, esp when they have a vested interest in the outcome.  To expect otherwise is unrealistic and unreasonable, IMO.  The proxies were not counted because they did not meet the requirements if I recall correctly.


----------



## SueDonJ

modoaruba said:


> What bothers me the most about the meetings is the way the voting is conducted.
> A true majority vote of owners would have selected the other two candidates.
> Here we see that the proxies were not qualified and that Marriotts 1500 votes did.
> I am not saying here which way I personally would have voted,but shows me that as an owner my vote does not matter.THIS bothers me.
> Even if I did want the winners to win,I did not want it done in the matter that it was done.
> It's quite insulting to say the least.
> Hope and Change-REALLY!?



This was all discussed following a previous vote issue and it was never determined that Marriott et al acted incorrectly or illegally by voting their owner and management shares.  It appears that the "concerned owners" group's problem with that previous vote is that the group didn't understand the process as it's stipulated in the governing documents.  It's hard to believe, though, that the same questions are coming up with this most recent vote.  The voting process should at least be understood by this point, even if you don't think that it's fair.  It's legal, and that's all that matters here.

It's also hard to believe that Allan Cohen would go to the latest Annual Meeting "representing 1360 votes" and not take that responsibility seriously enough to make sure that he knew exactly what power was conferred upon him by the proxies he was holding.  That's a serious dereliction of duty even if he was acting as a proxy on a volunteer basis.  The fault for those proxies not counting doesn't fall on Marriott/MVCI unless the governing docs specifically prohibit them from using different wording in different proxy forms.   It doesn't appear that's the case, which means that the fault lies with the proxy holder, Allan Cohen, and by extension the owners who did not secure their votes with an informed and prepared representative.  And once more, a quick consultation with a competent attorney before the proxies were secured would have prevented this misunderstanding.

What's mind-boggling to me most, though, is that the "concerned owners" continue to trust Allan unconditionally despite his missteps with the future of their investments in a Marriott resort, while every move made by any Marriott rep is looked upon as suspect despite the fact that none of their moves have been contrary to the resort's governing docs.


----------



## modoaruba

I understand full well what is being said here and without defending either side it has made me aware of a my naivite.
Don't insult me by calling me an "owner" for the only thing I own is a liability of paying my fees.Meetings are all predetermined as far as agenda and results.
Voting for anything or anyone is a joke.Like I stated before,it did not matter who I had voted for.The winners were predetermined.
All this being legal or not does not give me consolation.

Owning 4 weeks at this time of our uncertain economy is a large financial burden which is made even more burdening by the politics of the banana republic which we call the BOD.

I asked before for a taping of the meeting so we can all see the truth and mannerisms.That was shot down due to some BS reason.(reminds me of what we as Americans should have been allowed to watch on CSPAN).

So,anyone want to buy a week with full voting priviledges from me?


----------



## jlf58

No thanks, your group has hurt the value way to much for that  





modoaruba said:


> I understand full well what is being said here and without defending either side it has made me aware of a my naivite.
> Don't insult me by calling me an "owner" for the only thing I own is a liability of paying my fees.Meetings are all predetermined as far as agenda and results.
> Voting for anything or anyone is a joke.Like I stated before,it did not matter who I had voted for.The winners were predetermined.
> All this being legal or not does not give me consolation.
> 
> Owning 4 weeks at this time of our uncertain economy is a large financial burden which is made even more burdening by the politics of the banana republic which we call the BOD.
> 
> I asked before for a taping of the meeting so we can all see the truth and mannerisms.That was shot down due to some BS reason.(reminds me of what we as Americans should have been allowed to watch on CSPAN).
> 
> So,anyone want to buy a week with full voting priviledges from me?


----------



## modoaruba

Just to inform you,I am not posting as any member of any group.So my group has not devalued anything.I am just an "owner" making observations and calling it as I see it.
Personally,I would not buy any TS at this time from any organization.


----------



## jlf58

I totally disagree 





modoaruba said:


> .So my group has not devalued anything.QUOTE]


----------



## cruisin

modoaruba said:


> I understand full well what is being said here and without defending either side it has made me aware of a my naivite.
> Don't insult me by calling me an "owner" for the only thing I own is a liability of paying my fees.Meetings are all predetermined as far as agenda and results.
> Voting for anything or anyone is a joke.Like I stated before,it did not matter who I had voted for.The winners were predetermined.
> All this being legal or not does not give me consolation.
> 
> Owning 4 weeks at this time of our uncertain economy is a large financial burden which is made even more burdening by the politics of the banana republic which we call the BOD.
> 
> I asked before for a taping of the meeting so we can all see the truth and mannerisms.That was shot down due to some BS reason.(reminds me of what we as Americans should have been allowed to watch on CSPAN).
> 
> So,anyone want to buy a week with full voting priviledges from me?



I would sell as fast as you can, the situation will never get better. If you believe the building was horrible when you bought it, You should  not trust the people you bought your units from to take care of you in the future.


----------



## lovearuba

*where's eric*

the usual crowd has weighed in but I havent heard from Eric, hope he is okay.


----------



## ecwinch

I am fine, thanks for the thoughts. 

I was typing a response when the letter from Allan first hit. But I realized that a "I told you so" post would really be counter-productive based on where things are heading.

For it seems like your group is moving towards some closure that hopefully will put this ugly chapter of the AOC history in the past. I think that is a positive, and wish your group the best outcome in that regard.


----------



## lovearuba

*thanks Eric*

I am pleased to see you are okay.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> Just to inform you,I am not posting as any member of any group.So my group has not devalued anything.I am just an "owner" making observations and calling it as I see it.
> Personally,I would not buy any TS at this time from any organization.


IMO, anyone who has aligned themselves with the group along the way is stuck with the stigma and legacy thus associated (good or bad).  I think others will have to judge whether you can separate yourself on a given issue appropriately, I don't think an individual can step in and out themselves.  I think one can distinguish whether they're speaking for the group but they can not establish immunity from being judged on the actions of the group on their own accord.  Just signing up on the website is likely not enough to bear this burden but being involved in a petition, giving a proxy, participating on threads such as this as a member or contacting Marriott directly about this matter in support would trigger a certain amount of responsibility for the actions of the group from that point forward even if they later separated themselves from the group.


----------



## timeos2

*There is never an answer thats good enough*



SueDonJ said:


> Other than that possibility, what gains are there to be had by a meeting between Marriott et al and the "concerned owners" group?  This is the question that's been asked repeatedly throughout all the months that this thread has existed, and there's never been an answer.  MAOC owners have received more detailed communications about their resort than any other MVCI resort, so the "transparency" issue seems to be resolved.  As well, MAOC owners have received more financial relief than is required from Marriott towards their resort's maintenance costs.
> 
> What concessions do you "concerned owners" want from Marriott, and what makes you think that you have a right to them?



There would appear to be the rub. There is no guarantee or even likelihood that whatever comes out of any such meeting would in anyway satisfy the "concerned owners" or make them stop the myriad of charges/demands. Unless something can officially end that the potential for more threats and costs never go away. It is true that anyone can sue anyone for virtually anything but you hope people/organizations you have relationships with or help pay for use that powerful tool extremely selectively.  It is potentially extremely costly and often results in unexpected consequences.  From the start this group of "concerned owners" has seemingly lack a plan, focus and proper legal advice.  The results so far have been far more costly than any value.


----------



## Dean

timeos2 said:


> There would appear to be the rub. There is no guarantee or even likelihood that whatever comes out of any such meeting would in anyway satisfy the "concerned owners" or make them stop the myriad of charges/demands. Unless something can officially end that the potential for more threats and costs never go away. It is true that anyone can sue anyone for virtually anything but you hope people/organizations you have relationships with or help pay for use that powerful tool extremely selectively.  It is potentially extremely costly and often results in unexpected consequences.  From the start this group of "concerned owners" has seemingly lack a plan, focus and proper legal advice.  The results so far have been far more costly than any value.


I'd say there are one of two predictable outcomes, will they be patronized or stonewalled?  Unfortunately after Allan's interactions at the annual meeting (likely among other interactions) he's more likely a hindrance to the goals of the group than anything else.  He indeed may be in the right, I really don't know, but I do know you don't want to play rough with the 600 pound gorilla unless you brought your big boy clothes.  As I said previously in this thread, I really think the only way to get done what they wanted to get done was to lay it all out and if things didn't proceed in a way they were happy with, go for the law suit essentially from the start.  That way once the inevitable negotiations start, you at least have a bargaining chip.  Now the only pressure they can bring is a threat of a law suit and it's clear they're not prepared for that but even if they were, they've already lost any position of power they might have had.


----------



## qlaval

*•June 2010 Meeting Minutes *NEW!*

*•June 2010 Meeting Minutes *NEW!*

Marriott Vacation Club of Aruba Cooperative Association
*Board Organizational Meeting 
June 1, 2010*
The Board of Directors of the Marriott Vacation Club of Aruba Cooperative Association held a meeting via conference call on Tuesday June 1, 2010.

*Board Members present were*: 
Frank Knox, President, Stevan Richards, Vice President, Anthony Lifrieri, Board Officer, Mike Reilly, Board Officer.

*Board Member(s) not present*: 
Melissa Pericolosi, Treasurer/Secretary

*Present from Marriott Vacation Club® were*: 
Corey Guest, General Manager, and Gail Sahit, Executive Administrative Assistant.

*CALL TO ORDER*
The Board Meeting was called to order at 8.12 p.m. Eastern standard time.
*ESTABLISHING QUORUM*
With a majority of Board Members present, quorum was met.
*APPOINTMENT OF RECORDING SECRETARY*
The Board of Directors of the Marriott Vacation Club of Aruba Cooperative Association appointed Gail Sahit as Recording Secretary.
*APROVAL OF AGENDA*
The Board President Frank Knox requests a motion to approve the agenda.
Motion was made by Anthony Lifrieri to approve the agenda of June 1, 2010 and seconded by Steve Richards. With all in favor the motion was passed.

*UNFINISHED BUSINESS*
After the last Annual Meeting there was no Organizational Meeting held immediately afterwards due to the fact that Board Officer Mike Reilly was not in attendance and consideration must be given to him to be present as a voting member of the Board and its organization of officers. And since no announcement could have been made at that time of the date and time of the Organizational Meeting, Frank Knox requests that a motion be made to waive the official notice of date for this meeting.

*Motion was made by Anthony Lifrieri to waive the notice of the organizational meeting stated as such in Article 6.2. and seconded by Steve Richards. With all in favor the motion was passed.*

*NEW BUSINESS*
For the organization of the Board of Directors the following motions were made:
*Frank Knox nominates Steve Richards as Vice-President, which was seconded by Anthony Lifrieri. With all in favor the motion was unanimously carried.
Frank Knox nominates Melissa Pericolosi as Treasurer/Secretary, which was seconded by Mike Reilly. With all in favor the motion was unanimously carried.
Steve Richards nominates Frank Knox as Board President, which was seconded by Anthony Lifrieri. With all in favor the motion was unanimously carried.*

*ADJOURNMENT*
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8.16 p.m. Eastern standard time.
Submitted by: Gail Sahit-Mahabeer 
Approved by: Frank Knox

_These minutes are subject to approval at the next Board Meeting_


----------



## Dean

Where's the Parliamentarian?  The Pres should not be nominating and generally should only vote in tiebreaker situations.  I don't see it would have made any difference but they should still follow the rules of order.


----------



## SueDonJ

I'm confused, Dean.  These are minutes from the board's 6/1 telephone meeting, not a Special Meeting or the 5/21 Annual Meeting.  I wouldn't think that the Parliamentarian is necessary to keep order at a meeting where only the board members are present.  Also, is it written in the documents that the BOD President can't make organizational nominations?

{edited to add} Just checked arubaoceanclub.com for the more recent meeting minutes - the Parliamentarian wasn't present either for the 5/3/10 BOD telephone meeting, and the minutes from the 5/21/10 Annual Meeting are not up.  Interesting, VALID reasons for not taping meetings is in the 5/3 link, if anyone wants to know the actual reasons why it's not allowed.


----------



## Dean

SueDonJ said:


> I'm confused, Dean.  These are minutes from the board's 6/1 telephone meeting, not a Special Meeting or the 5/21 Annual Meeting.  I wouldn't think that the Parliamentarian is necessary to keep order at a meeting where only the board members are present.  Also, is it written in the documents that the BOD President can't make organizational nominations?
> 
> {edited to add} Just checked arubaoceanclub.com for the more recent meeting minutes - the Parliamentarian wasn't present either for the 5/3/10 BOD telephone meeting, and the minutes from the 5/21/10 Annual Meeting are not up.  Interesting, VALID reasons for not taping meetings is in the 5/3 link, if anyone wants to know the actual reasons why it's not allowed.


I was mostly joking.  I assumed a parliamentarian wasn't present but was pointing out the breach of the normal process for such meetings.  The Pres should have just gone ahead and nominated himself given the process taken.


----------



## SueDonJ

Isn't it funny (no pun intended) how in this thread it's more difficult to "read" the slight haha's than in any other thread?  My first thought was, "Dean can't be serious here about the parliamentarian, can he?"  So I had to ask.   

But your thing about the BOD pres not participating in nominations, that really did confuse me.  Are they not allowed?


----------



## lovearuba

*Board Meetings*

Isnt the whole purpose of meeting notes from a board meeting intended to document what actually happened in the meeting or is it really to only capture what the board wants to release.  

As a follow up, since the annual meeting included owners, shouldn't all the motions made in the meeting be documented along with the results of the motion.  Whether or not you believe in the concerned owners group, one would think you would agree that meeting notes should actually capture what happened in the meeting.


----------



## jonnat

*Ocean Club Has Never Looked Better*

I have been following this thread for a couple of years now and have chosen only to reply after coming back to the resort this year after two years away.  First, the group called the "Concerned Owners" is a bunch of whining windbags.  This place looks amazing.  The new look in the villas, the furniture, the bathrooms, the halls, and the lobby are huge upgrades to what was here before.  I liked the old resort but it was showing its age for sure.   The staff here seem to go out of their way to make your experience great.

As for the extra fees I as well have had to pay for this renovation.  Yes, it was a big hit for us but it was well worth it!  It is amazing to me the very people who were running our association previously are the people who are the most critical of everything that is being done here. What is also amazing that our very own former Board President is leading the charge when indeed one could place a lot of blame on him and the former BOD for not watching our finances better?  They are the ones who are supposed to watch reserves, anticipate costs, and then execute items on behalf of the organization.  I bought into this property because of the MARRIOTT name and nothing else.  They have a standard which is known worldwide and they maintain their timeshare properties consistently across their name brand.  

Furthermore, the additional money that is being spent for unnecessary litigation is infuriating.  Face it, we don't want our private information going out to a bunch of people who in my opinion have not proven anything to us besides that they are capable of wasting our money on this stupid court case.  However, they are the same people who accuse Marriott of wasting our Association money.  Doesn't that sound like a hypocritical way of thinking?

Yes, we will never agree on everything. Some people may not like the paint color, or the new curtains, etc but Corey and the BOD is making a difference on the property and bringing it back up to the standards it should have always been maintained.   KUDOS to our BOD for doing the right thing for our investment even with the extra cost which we ALL HAVE HAD TO BEAR!


----------



## billymach4

Welcome to Tug!

You make a good point here. But some might be very suspicious of your motive as you only have one post. 

But we do need a distraction from the other issues looming here.


----------



## jonnat

Thanks Billy.  I have chosen to not say anything but there is no motive or hidden agenda.  Just speaking my mind about how I see things.  BTW I am am member the Concerned Owners board too so I am looking at both sides of the issue and then form my opinion based on the facts.  





billymach4 said:


> Welcome to Tug!
> 
> You make a good point here. But some might be very suspicious of your motive as you only have one post.
> 
> But we do need a distraction from the other issues looming here.


----------



## lovearuba

*other motive*



jonnat said:


> Thanks Billy.  I have chosen to not say anything but there is no motive or hidden agenda.  Just speaking my mind about how I see things.  BTW I am am member the Concerned Owners board too so I am looking at both sides of the issue and then form my opinion based on the facts.



I would say you have another motive since you would have to agree to supporting the concerned owners cause to register for the site.  Guess you think nothing of what you sign up for.  

Why don't you get into the point discussion and defend Marriott there, they really need a lot of help. :whoopie:


----------



## Luckybee

Lets see....nothing posted for 3 weeks then all of a sudden out of the blue a post from a first time poster that seems to be intended to stir the pot..perhaps intended as a distraction to get the discussions off the points system and on to another contentious issue..hmmmm....nope nothing suspicious there at all...I believe that almost as much as I believe that my weeks wont be affected by the new Marriott system


----------



## rickxylon

Sounds like lovearuba can't stand someone disagreeing with him/her.


----------



## jonnat

*Ha Ha Ha Ha*

Rickx:

 Thanks for pointing out the obvious.  I love how a newbee can't post their thoughts and observations.  Maybe I should have said, "Based on taking two years to form an educated opinion I believe that Marriott is a rip off. " 

Then I would be getting praises from all of the windbags.....  

Agree to disagree life is a lot better when you can.....




rickxylon said:


> Sounds like lovearuba can't stand someone disagreeing with him/her.


----------



## jonnat

*Concerned Owners A Rip Off*

Now I am laughing as because I finally posted something that conflicted with the Concerned Owners my log in has been removed from their page.  How childish and ridiculous.


----------



## ecwinch

Just confirming what we felt would happen all along with the private site. It is not a forum for the free discussion of the issues or the exchange of diverse viewpoints.  Toe the party line or hit the door.  

The "leadership" knows what is best for you. Just like they did when they were on the BoD. Other than that, they are only interested in your support, not your viewpoint.


----------



## lovearuba

*really*



ecwinch said:


> Just confirming what we felt would happen all along with the private site. It is not a forum for the free discussion of the issues or the exchange of diverse viewpoints.  Toe the party line or hit the door.
> 
> The "leadership" knows what is best for you. Just like they did when they were on the BoD. Other than that, they are only interested in your support, not your viewpoint.




So let me understand this, the poster just insulted every member of the group and stated that he did not want them to have his private information.  So we can either let him continue to be a member of a group he does not support and allow him to insult everyone in the group and we can keep his private information or we can remove him from the site for breaking the rules of participation. Removing him is appropriate and it also protects his private information because once he is deleted, he is deleted.

Now if he was removed from Tug your view would be different.  I just dont think you can look at both sides of this.


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> So let me understand this, the poster just insulted every member of the group and stated that he did not want them to have his private information.  So we can either let him continue to be a member of a group he does not support and allow him to insult everyone in the group and we can keep his private information or we can remove him from the site for breaking the rules of participation. Removing him is appropriate and it also protects his private information because once he is deleted, he is deleted.
> 
> Now if he was removed from Tug your view would be different.  I just dont think you can look at both sides of this.


Other than coming to a different conclusion and saying so and rightfully placing responsbility on a former President of the BOD (for good or bad), I don't see anything insulting.  



lovearuba said:


> I would say you have another motive since you would have to agree to supporting the concerned owners cause to register for the site.  Guess you think nothing of what you sign up for.
> 
> Why don't you get into the point discussion and defend Marriott there, they really need a lot of help. :whoopie:


Interesting admission of the agenda involved.  This is exactly the point some of us were addressing when this came around the first time, pretty closed minded I'd say to have a my way or the highway approach.  It's especially interesting for a group asking for transparency, whatever that really is in this situation.


----------



## modoaruba

This is a tough one.

Anyone  can start a group.Rules can be set mandating how an outsider can gain entry to this group.It need not be a democracy nor follow politcal correctness.
But if one who does gain entry decides to air their dirty laundry in the name of the group or insult by calling the group members names,then the group would have no choice but to severe ties.Why belong?
I am sure that the concerned owners group here would accept open mindedly any discussion that would have opposing view points on their site without the threat of excommunication of its members.
If the poster called the other TUG members "windbags" or other derogatory names om this site,how long before the moderator corrects them?
As far as transparancy,it's not the group that HAS to be,it's Marriott that the group wants transparent.The owners are the boss that hired Marriott to take care of their vacations.For the monies that are being paid to Marriott,the group wants transparancy and a say so to policies that affect them.The bosses do not need to be transparant.
Take what I just posted without taking sides.I based it on what I define a group to be and how a situation is handled.


----------



## lovearuba

*registration*



modoaruba said:


> This is a tough one.
> 
> Anyone  can start a group.Rules can be set mandating how an outsider can gain entry to this group.It need not be a democracy nor follow politcal correctness.
> But if one who does gain entry decides to air their dirty laundry in the name of the group or insult by calling the group members names,then the group would have no choice but to severe ties.Why belong?
> I am sure that the concerned owners group here would accept open mindedly any discussion that would have opposing view points on their site without the threat of excommunication of its members.
> If the poster called the other TUG members "windbags" or other derogatory names om this site,how long before the moderator corrects them?
> As far as transparancy,it's not the group that HAS to be,it's Marriott that the group wants transparent.The owners are the boss that hired Marriott to take care of their vacations.For the monies that are being paid to Marriott,the group wants transparancy and a say so to policies that affect them.The bosses do not need to be transparant.
> Take what I just posted without taking sides.I based it on what I define a group to be and how a situation is handled.



If the poster wants to retract the nasty remarks about the other members of the team and treat people with respect he is welcome to rejoin.  I still dont know why he would want to given that he does not believe in the cause of the group.  That is not the reason the poster was removed.  Its that simple, the group is for concerned members only.  It clearly says that.


----------



## Dean

modoaruba said:


> This is a tough one.
> 
> Anyone  can start a group.Rules can be set mandating how an outsider can gain entry to this group.It need not be a democracy nor follow politcal correctness.
> But if one who does gain entry decides to air their dirty laundry in the name of the group or insult by calling the group members names,then the group would have no choice but to severe ties.Why belong?
> I am sure that the concerned owners group here would accept open mindedly any discussion that would have opposing view points on their site without the threat of excommunication of its members.
> If the poster called the other TUG members "windbags" or other derogatory names om this site,how long before the moderator corrects them?
> As far as transparancy,it's not the group that HAS to be,it's Marriott that the group wants transparent.The owners are the boss that hired Marriott to take care of their vacations.For the monies that are being paid to Marriott,the group wants transparancy and a say so to policies that affect them.The bosses do not need to be transparant.
> Take what I just posted without taking sides.I based it on what I define a group to be and how a situation is handled.


I would agree with the right but disagree with the reasonableness of such an action, esp when it comes to those that share a common goal but different opinions of how to get there or who's right/wrong on the 2 sides.  While I realize the group is asking for one sided transparency, I am pointing out the hypocracy.  Not to those of us who do not own there (though we have have a vested interest to a degree) but more to those who do own there but who's concerns might be different.  I realize we don't have the specifics of the post in question but removal from the site based on one post related to the subject matter seems to be an unreasonable approach as a first step.   As it relates to TUG, I am certain that this would have not happened on TUG for a timeshare related post based on one post.  I'd think that phishing and non related advertising posts from obviously inappropriate sources are about the extent of the type of posts that would garner this type of removal.


----------



## SueDonJ

lovearuba said:


> If the poster wants to retract the nasty remarks about the other members of the team and treat people with respect he is welcome to rejoin.  I still dont know why he would want to given that he does not believe in the cause of the group.  That is not the reason the poster was removed.  Its that simple, the group is for concerned members only.  It clearly says that.



It does.  But you can't be surprised to learn that MAOC owners who do not agree with the group's concerns have joined the site and quietly watched whatever is happening there from the sidelines?  That's exactly what I would expect, considering all of the insinuations made throughout this thread (and wherever else your site has been touted) that an owner can "get the real story" only by registering/joining the site.

I know, I know, you're in control over there and you can add/remove access for whomever you please if they're not playing correctly.  What jonnat has now proven, though, is that if you're relying on the number of owners registered to your site as the definitive number of owners who support the efforts of the "concerned owners" group, perhaps you should rethink that.

Do you remember when your site was established and some of us cautioned that in the (unlikely?) event Marriott was to take action against self-proclaimed members of the "concerned owners" group, that the disclaimer on your site of anyone signing up being in agreement with the cause could constitute inclusion into the group?  Well, you denied that was the purpose for the disclaimer.  Now here with jonnat you're saying s/he shouldn't have joined because s/he isn't in agreement with the group's efforts.  I'm confused.


----------



## jonnat

*Update on Where I Stand*

After two emails to Allan and responses and an offer to chat with him I will not speak to him any further until my account has been reinstated on Concerned Owners Website.  As of today I really do not support their effort as they promote the same tactics that they have accused Marriott of doing to all the owners.  I have stated this directly to Allan whose name is plastered on the site as the person to contact.  I have also been told by Allan that their webmaster is independent to the site and he would look into what happened. No response on what happened.   It is all very suspicious to say the least.  As for being insulting what I have found insulting is the amount of accusations that have been slung across this board that have questionable truth to them and are posted as truth.  I have nothing to apologize for and will not apologize for anything I post here as I would say the exact same thing in person as I post here.  As I stated before I did not hold an opinion about this issue but was very interested on seeing both sides of the issue before I formed my opinion.  My opinion is based on TWO YEARS of seeing both sides and my final visit to an amazing resort.  Also, the childish response from a group of people who I can now see are more manipulative and unreasonable that the corporate domination of "Marriott" they claim to be victims of.  
What is most infuriating to me is that my fees are being used to fight litigation that can't be resolved and quite honestly has become petty if anything else.  We voted (The Association), I voted (I don't want my information disclosed to third parties or other owners), and it is time to move on.  I am glad that I posted here what I posted and that some people do not feel happy about it.  What I have accomplished is another dialogue that gets both sides thinking about their actions and hopefully will lead to closure on this thread and some of the tactics that have been going on for way too long.


----------



## jonnat

*??????????????*

By the way I find it interesting how you seem to be insulting from what I posted on the Concerned Owners Site.  Being that I don't have access to that site anymore would anyone be brave enough to post on here what I actually posted on the website.  It talked about how nice the resort looks now and nothing else.  Nothing nasty or insulting to the group on the group site.

NEXT.........................



lovearuba said:


> If the poster wants to retract the nasty remarks about the other members of the team and treat people with respect he is welcome to rejoin.  I still dont know why he would want to given that he does not believe in the cause of the group.  That is not the reason the poster was removed.  Its that simple, the group is for concerned members only.  It clearly says that.


----------



## Luckybee

Somehow jonnat I doubt you've accomplished anything

And if you werent sure what the webmaster of the concerned owners group meant as insulting....well hmmmm.....calling the members of the concerned owners group "a bunch of whining windbags" would likely be considered in most quarters as an insult...lol

And obviously you wouldnt want to be a member where all the members are just that would you? So whats the problem....voila....you're not a member


----------



## lovearuba

*Hi Sue*



SueDonJ said:


> It does.  But you can't be surprised to learn that MAOC owners who do not agree with the group's concerns have joined the site and quietly watched whatever is happening there from the sidelines?  That's exactly what I would expect, considering all of the insinuations made throughout this thread (and wherever else your site has been touted) that an owner can "get the real story" only by registering/joining the site.
> 
> I know, I know, you're in control over there and you can add/remove access for whomever you please if they're not playing correctly.  What jonnat has now proven, though, is that if you're relying on the number of owners registered to your site as the definitive number of owners who support the efforts of the "concerned owners" group, perhaps you should rethink that.
> 
> Do you remember when your site was established and some of us cautioned that in the (unlikely?) event Marriott was to take action against self-proclaimed members of the "concerned owners" group, that the disclaimer on your site of anyone signing up being in agreement with the cause could constitute inclusion into the group?  Well, you denied that was the purpose for the disclaimer.  Now here with jonnat you're saying s/he shouldn't have joined because s/he isn't in agreement with the group's efforts.  I'm confused.



Hi Sue
I certainly understand that owners would want to register to get the information and we are fine with that if they are an owner.  If they decide afterwards that they dont agree and want to remove themselves thats okay too.  Whats not okay is to join the site, come here and call everyone a whining windbag and still remain active on the site.  I am sure if I insulted everyone on tug my account would be suspended.  Its that simple.


----------



## jonnat

*It is now transparent*

You have proven your own case and motive it is clear.  It has been exposed to all in writing.  I guess I have accomplished something now.
Let people make their choice based on that.





Luckybee said:


> Somehow jonnat I doubt you've accomplished anything
> 
> And if you werent sure what the webmaster of the concerned owners group meant as insulting....well hmmmm.....calling the members of the concerned owners group "a bunch of whining windbags" would likely be considered in most quarters as an insult...lol
> 
> And obviously you wouldnt want to be a member where all the members are just that would you? So whats the problem....voila....you're not a member


----------



## Luckybee

lovearuba said:


> Hi Sue
> I certainly understand that owners would want to register to get the information and we are fine with that if they are an owner.  If they decide afterwards that they dont agree and want to remove themselves thats okay too.  Whats not okay is to join the site, come here and call everyone a whining windbag and still remain active on the site.  I am sure if I insulted everyone on tug my account would be suspended.  Its that simple.



What is even more interesting is how the poster was able to insult Tug members, ( as we both know there are many Tug members who are in fact members of the concerned owners group some much more silent than others...lol) which he has done and not be reprimanded by the moderators, do ya think there might be a bit of a bias going on. I waited for 2 days before saying this because I thought for certain the post would be removed if the Tug policies were applied in an even handed manner...Nah, insults are ok on Tug right ?


----------



## pianodinosaur

I am a new owner at Marriott's Mountain Valley Lodge. My main concern is that I would like to be able exchange into either the Aruba Ocean Club or the Aruba Surf Club via II.  The MFs at MMVL are high and the new point system gives owners at MMVL virtually no trading power.  Then again, as a resale purchaser, I would not be able to participate in the point system even if I wanted to. 

However, it seems that the Aruba Surf Club and Aruba Ocean Club may have done quite well under the new points system.  If your MF/point ratio is less than $0.25/point, you may get some fantastic trades at a bargain. That is of course assuming that you may wish to vacation someplace other than Aruba.

I am curious to know how the owners at AOC perceive this situation.  I will not be offended if you disagree with me.  (BTW, I have been an owner with HGVC since 2001 and there never has been any point skimming with HGVC.  However,that is not the question I am asking about. I would like to understand if you think your trading power has increased or decreased with the new point system.)


----------



## lovearuba

*still digesting*

Hi
I think they are doing the same thing as the majority of the tug members, still trying to understand the new system.  A number of them have reached out to Allan Cohen.  If you wanted to send him an email he may be able to give you an idea of some of the feedback he's been getting.  His number and email are posted on the website. You do not have to register to see his contact information.

www.aocconcernedowners.com

Please dont sign up and come back here and call everyone a whining windbag.:ignore:


----------



## Luckybee

Good question Piano...for me the answer is I dont know. We havent traded alot, but over the years I've seen what was available in trade with our 1bdrm ovean view weeks in Gold season and there wasnt a trade we couldnt get(holidays weeks excepted) . When I checked into various possibilities by calling I.I we could have traded to any of the Hawaii 2 bedrooms in high season and these were available on an instant confirmation basis to us for March 6 years ago when we were considering a trade using a Nov booking at the O.C(we didnt end up doing it...well let me rephrase...we went to Hawaii that year just not in a timeshare 

Most of the friends we have there and others who we know that go down every year at the same time dont trade (we're boring  )but im sure you'll get more answers from those on Tug who do


----------



## pianodinosaur

lovearuba said:


> Hi
> I think they are doing the same thing as the majority of the tug members, still trying to understand the new system.  A number of them have reached out to Allan Cohen.  If you wanted to send him an email he may be able to give you an idea of some of the feedback he's been getting.  His number and email are posted on the website. You do not have to register to see his contact information.
> 
> www.aocconcernedowners.com
> 
> Please dont sign up and come back here and call everyone a whining windbag.:ignore:



:hysterical: I would be shot by the moderators if I did that.  I have no desire to make enemies at Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club. All I want to do is have a good time there.


----------



## modoaruba

Have owned since 1998 and have never traded.Instead used II for other destinations at a great rate.It never made sense to us to trade because we never knew if we would get a destination of equal value.
We like going annually to Aruba.Actually going for about 30 years.
Think we like it?
As far as the point system goes we are in the dark about it.
We will be in Aruba next week and will try to schedule a meeting with our salesperson to try to explain what its all about.
Maybe we'll meet some of the other whining windbags when we go.


----------



## Dean

Luckybee said:


> Somehow jonnat I doubt you've accomplished anything
> 
> And if you werent sure what the webmaster of the concerned owners group meant as insulting....well hmmmm.....calling the members of the concerned owners group "a bunch of whining windbags" would likely be considered in most quarters as an insult...lol
> 
> And obviously you wouldnt want to be a member where all the members are just that would you? So whats the problem....voila....you're not a member


Those words directed at a group wouldn't even justify a post removal if on topic for a thread, IMO.  If directed at a single person, a post removal would be in order and a minor warning at most.  Even repeated instances of sich issues would not justify account suspension, must less removal, IMO.


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> So let me understand this, the poster just insulted every member of the group and stated that he did not want them to have his private information.  So we can either let him continue to be a member of a group he does not support and allow him to insult everyone in the group and we can keep his private information or we can remove him from the site for breaking the rules of participation. Removing him is appropriate and it also protects his private information because once he is deleted, he is deleted.
> 
> Now if he was removed from Tug your view would be different.  I just dont think you can look at both sides of this.



Censorship by banishing someone from the site is fairly easy to understand. 

You criticize the current AOC BoD for marginalizing the opinions and voice of those "concerned" owners who disagree with the BoD. Then you do the same for a owner that disagrees with your group. By hiding behind the "rules of participation".

Not sure when simply disagreeing with another's viewpoint became the same as insulting them.


----------



## ecwinch

jonnat said:


> After two emails to Allan and responses and an offer to chat with him I will not speak to him any further until my account has been reinstated on Concerned Owners Website.  As of today I really do not support their effort as they promote the same tactics that they have accused Marriott of doing to all the owners.  I have stated this directly to Allan whose name is plastered on the site as the person to contact.  I have also been told by Allan that their webmaster is independent to the site and he would look into what happened. No response on what happened.   It is all very suspicious to say the least.  As for being insulting what I have found insulting is the amount of accusations that have been slung across this board that have questionable truth to them and are posted as truth.  I have nothing to apologize for and will not apologize for anything I post here as I would say the exact same thing in person as I post here.  As I stated before I did not hold an opinion about this issue but was very interested on seeing both sides of the issue before I formed my opinion.  My opinion is based on TWO YEARS of seeing both sides and my final visit to an amazing resort.  Also, the childish response from a group of people who I can now see are more manipulative and unreasonable that the corporate domination of "Marriott" they claim to be victims of.
> What is most infuriating to me is that my fees are being used to fight litigation that can't be resolved and quite honestly has become petty if anything else.  We voted (The Association), I voted (I don't want my information disclosed to third parties or other owners), and it is time to move on.  I am glad that I posted here what I posted and that some people do not feel happy about it.  What I have accomplished is another dialogue that gets both sides thinking about their actions and hopefully will lead to closure on this thread and some of the tactics that have been going on for way too long.



This account is very strangely similar to my dialog with Allan from a year ago. At the time, he completely disavowed any support of Mark's actions on the board. Though he continued to use Mark as a mouthpiece for his presence here.

Can you say "plausible deniability"?


----------



## lovearuba

*new points*

a diversion technique -are you just bored or trying to change the subject of the board.  I mean really, there is no administrator of any board that would allow a member to trash the other members of the board and remain active.  If those remarks are retracted, the member can reregister.  Its common respect and I think you know that.  If I called you and Dave and any everyone that participates in tug a whining windbag I know I would be suspended.  However, since this particular action was done related to the concerned owners website, you are not being fair.

I ponder why you are doing that, I understand some of the posters doing it but you Eric.  I am going to chalk it up to you getting nothing out of reading the points discussions, you need another topic.  I am also a little bored from reading the threads but I would very much be interested in your opinion on the new point system.  For example what do you think about Marriott changing the rules of trading and pretty much taking away the voting rights for those that are loyal Marriott customers who will sign up.  Would you sign up.


----------



## jonnat

*Have you ever thought?*

That maybe there are some people who are sick of hearing people on this Board trash our property, our investment, our time to relax?  That we are happy with the way things look and are operated and are equally just a bored or annoyed with the negative postings that have been going on here for two plus years?


----------



## Dean

lovearuba said:


> a diversion technique -are you just bored or trying to change the subject of the board.  I mean really, there is no administrator of any board that would allow a member to trash the other members of the board and remain active.  If those remarks are retracted, the member can reregister.  Its common respect and I think you know that.  If I called you and Dave and any everyone that participates in tug a whining windbag I know I would be suspended.  However, since this particular action was done related to the concerned owners website, you are not being fair.


That is absolutely NOT true.  NO reasonable moderator or webmaster would suspend you for such a remark as a first offense, much less remove you totally.  I doubt such a post would even be removed if directed at a group, it likely would be removed and a warning if directed at an individual.  This was a draconian tactic that was unreasonable and unwarranted, plain and simple, but then again so is the requirement to agree with the mission statement to participate.


----------



## rickxylon

jonnat said:


> That maybe there are some people who are sick of hearing people on this Board trash our property, our investment, our time to relax?  That we are happy with the way things look and are operated and are equally just a bored or annoyed with the negative postings that have been going on here for two plus years?


I think it is clear that there are a lot of owners who feel the same way. Why doesn't the concerned owners group just pull up their big girl panties and enjoy the Ocean Club. Stop wasting everyone's money!


----------



## lovearuba

*Moderator rules are clear*

Have a great 4th regardless of your opinion, sincerely this is a day of celebration, hope you enjoy it.


----------



## tlwmkw

I don't think Tug moderators would censor anyone for something that they said on a different board- for all we know you are trashing Tuggers constantly on the "Concerned owners group" but 1) it is a private site and no one would know and 2) it's not on this board so it isn't pertinent and cannot be controlled by Tug-  I've never heard of seen any moderator commenting on a members outside posts (in fact they have encouraged some folks to post their political views on other boards that are intended for that purpose).

I do think you have (again) lost some credibility when you bar owners who disagree with you and make mildly insulting statements on outside boards.  Are you really insulted?  That is about as mild as it can get as far as insults go.

Your name is "Concerned owners group" but others can be concerned too but in different ways.  The group continues to suffer because it doesn't really have any goals and cannot explain what it's current purpose is or even what it is really concerned about.  I think your group will shrink as owners see the new renovations that Allan Cohen tried to block because they were too expensive.  Then there will be a handful of committed members and you will all agree 100% of the time about everything!

BTW- why are you all saying you will check with Allan about the points program?  Does he have some special, secret information about this too?  It has all happened after he left the board so I don't see why he would know anything more than any other owner.  Also, don't go to a sales presentation expecting to get good information- the salespeople don't have much training on this and are mainly interested in selling you points.  If you have questions the points specialists are (slightly) better, and Dave M.s excellent post is even better yet.

Happy Fourth of July!!

tlwmkw


----------



## Luckybee

Whatever jonnats opinions are he is entitled to. That said imho under the circumstances it was entirely appropriate that lovearuba booted him from her website. *Not for his opinion *but rather for the *insult* levied against all the members of the group. I for one do not appreciate being referred to as a whining windbag and yes I find it very insulting. It is far more insulting than other comments made in this thread that got others suspended on this very board. 

All of that aside what I still find extremely odd is that a new poster comes on here and starts heaping an insult on a thread has been extremely controversial but that is dormant, in the middle of the biggest fiasco likely in Marriotts history.  I dont care what side of the fence one is on...this looks like a distraction technique .The "why" is what Im still not sure about 

tlwmkw
Where do "*all* "of us say we're checking with Allan about the points program? The only reference to Allan that I could see in relation to the points program was by a sigle person, namely, lovearuba indicated that a number of owners have reached out to Allan for his opinion. Was there something else I missed subsequently removed?


----------



## ecwinch

lovearuba said:


> a diversion technique -are you just bored or trying to change the subject of the board.  I mean really, there is no administrator of any board that would allow a member to trash the other members of the board and remain active.  If those remarks are retracted, the member can reregister.  Its common respect and I think you know that.  If I called you and Dave and any everyone that participates in tug a whining windbag I know I would be suspended.  However, since this particular action was done related to the concerned owners website, you are not being fair.
> 
> I ponder why you are doing that, I understand some of the posters doing it but you Eric.  I am going to chalk it up to you getting nothing out of reading the points discussions, you need another topic.  I am also a little bored from reading the threads but I would very much be interested in your opinion on the new point system.  For example what do you think about Marriott changing the rules of trading and pretty much taking away the voting rights for those that are loyal Marriott customers who will sign up.  Would you sign up.



I know you would really would like to hide behind this point that he trashed other members, or turn the dialog toward the pts system. But I think Dean framed the issue best when he pointed out that his comments were too vague and general in nature to be construed as a personal attack on any one individual. 

And I am pretty sure that even if he had omitted that reference, your group still would have found some other reason to kick him off the concerned owners group board. I think Luckybee's comments clearly indicate that point.  The rationale is just a smokescreen.

In the same vein as you questioning my motives.  This has been the tactics of your group all along. Whenever pointed questions are asked, avoid those issues by questioning the motives of the person asking the question. Same song, different verse.


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> I know you would really would like to hide behind this point that he trashed other members, or turn the dialog toward the pts system. But I think Dean framed the issue best when he pointed out that his comments were too vague and general in nature to be construed as a personal attack on any one individual.
> 
> And I am pretty sure that even if he had omitted that reference, your group still would have found some other reason to kick him off the concerned owners group board. I think Luckybee's comments clearly indicate that point.  The rationale is just a smokescreen.
> 
> In the same vein as you questioning my motives.  This has been the tactics of your group all along. Whenever pointed questions are asked, avoid those issues by questioning the motives of the person asking the question. Same song, different verse.



For once I agree with you...well sort of...lol...his comments were not an attack on any one individual . They were an attack on the entire group of people. He called the entire concerned owner membership a "bunch of whining windbags" *on the TUG board*. I as a member of that group am insulted by the comment. Others who are members of both that group and Tug were insulted by that comment. I would not wish to be a member of a group if I felt that other members perceived me that way. If I came on here Eric and said that your group of Marriott apologists were a bunch of whining windbags, or if you said the same to me(well I doubt you could call me a Marriott apologist...lol) either of us would be suspended from Tug and you know it because you and I have been down that road before and it took a whole lot less than that. Funny thing though....quite a few more individual disenchanted with Marriott now.
Nothing is going to change by his comments. He just managed to stir the pot.
Funny that you've managed to *not *question his motivation in ressurecting a dormant thread when you have with so many on the other side of the issue.


----------



## Luckybee

pianodinosaur said:


> :hysterical: I would be shot by the moderators if I did that.  I have no desire to make enemies at Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club. All I want to do is have a good time there.





Apparently not....looks like open season according to our moderators lack of interest.


----------



## ecwinch

Luckybee said:


> For once I agree with you...well sort of...lol...his comments were not an attack on any one individual . They were an attack on the entire group of people. He called the entire concerned owner membership a "bunch of whining windbags" *on the TUG board*. I as a member of that group am insulted by the comment. Others who are members of both that group and Tug were insulted by that comment. I would not wish to be a member of a group if I felt that other members perceived me that way. If I came on here Eric and said that your group of Marriott apologists were a bunch of whining windbags, or if you said the same to me(well I doubt you could call me a Marriott apologist...lol) either of us would be suspended from Tug and you know it because you and I have been down that road before and it took a whole lot less than that. Funny thing though....quite a few more individual disenchanted with Marriott now.
> Nothing is going to change by his comments. He just managed to stir the pot.
> Funny that you've managed to *not *question his motivation in ressurecting a dormant thread when you have with so many on the other side of the issue.



*Please.* Calling a large group of people a "whiny windbag" is not a personal insult. He is not referring to any one specific person, only providing his personal opinion on how he views the group as a whole. His comments lack the specificity identifying any one specific person as whiny windbag, and should only be viewed in the context of the group as whole.

I have seen numerous comments have been made on this board about people's personal opinion of members of the legal profession. Are you likewise personally insulted by those comments? Should everyone who speaks ill of the legal profession be banned from TUG?

That is just clever rationalization of your group's attempt to censor his opinion. 

And I personally find it insulting that you try to marginalize the opinions of TUG members that you disagree with you by questioning their motives. Should I now lodge a complaint with the mods that I am personally insulted by being called a "Marriott apologist" in attempt to get you kicked off TUG?


----------



## Luckybee

ecwinch said:


> *Please.* Calling a large group of people a "whiny windbag" is not a personal insult. He is not referring to any one specific person, only providing his personal opinion on how he views the group as a whole. His comments lack the specificity identifying any one specific person as whiny windbag, and should only be viewed in the context of the group as whole.
> 
> I have seen numerous comments have been made on this board about people's personal opinion of members of the legal profession. Are you likewise personally insulted by those comments? Should everyone who speaks ill of the legal profession be banned from TUG?
> 
> That is just clever rationalization of your group's attempt to censor his opinion.
> 
> And I personally find it insulting that you try to marginalize the opinions of TUG members that you disagree with you by questioning their motives. Should I now lodge a complaint with the mods that I am personally insulted by being called a "Marriott apologist" in attempt to get you kicked off TUG?



Wouldnt be the first time !


----------



## jonnat

*Update on Being Ripped Off*

Can anyone give an update on how we are being ripped off if you own at AOC?  I am just curious to see are there some new things that have come up or are the same issues on the table.  

Also, are there other people who are on this board that own at AOC and feel they are not being ripped off and enjoy their experience with Marriott and AOC?


----------



## rickxylon

jonnat said:


> Can anyone give an update on how we are being ripped off if you own at AOC?  I am just curious to see are there some new things that have come up or are the same issues on the table.
> 
> Also, are there other people who are on this board that own at AOC and feel they are not being ripped off and enjoy their experience with Marriott and AOC?



The minutes from the annual meeting can be found here http://www.arubaoceanclub.com/

I believe Allen Cohen has sent an email with more of his perspective. Perhaps someone can share that so we can all "enjoy" that story.

We missed going last year (went to Hawaii for the first time and thoroughly enjoyed that). However, we still miss not going to Aruba. We are already booked for 2 weeks this coming Feb and counting the days. Of course we were not happy with the extra assessments, but it is what it is and feel most of the blame should rest with Allen and the former board for not doing their job in creating sufficient reserves.

I think the only rip off still happening is being caused by the "concerned owners group" who is forcing Marriott to spend our money defending their frivilous issues. They should drop their suit and enjoy the Ocean Club and beautiful Aruba OR sell and leave the rest of us alone.


----------



## marksue

*alive and kicking*

ARUBA OCEAN CLUB CONCERNED OWNERS
November 10, 2010

Dear Aruba Ocean Club Board of Directors:

After waiting, since June, for a response from you to our several offers previously made to resolve our legal action seeking the ability to contact all Aruba Ocean Club Owners and put an end to the waste of funds by the Aruba Ocean Club Board (the Board hereafter) and the Marriott Vacation Club International Division of Marriott (MVCI or Marriott, hereafter), I finally received your response.  It is clear, from that response, that the Board and Marriott continue to act in bad faith and are seeking to mislead the Owners by continuing to make incomplete, erroneous, or false statements as to the facts involved and the clear intent of the Aruba Ocean Club (AOC) Concerned Owners.  Your offer to include our web site address in a limited number of newsletters with the requirement that the Concerned Owners stop all other attempts to contact owners is not reasonable, adequate, or sufficient without your clearly informing the owners about and acknowledging the truth about all of the facts as well as providing owners the ability to contact each other on a regular basis outside the Board's and MVCI's control.

   Your lack of good faith is clearly demonstrated by the following:

    1. Your refusal to acknowledge that the action to seek transparency is being taken not by myself but on behalf of over 1000 Aruba Ocean Club Owners and the web site,  www.aocconcernedowners.com, is theirs with contributions from various owners and is not my personal web site. The effort to seek transparency or openness is to keep the Owners duly informed of relevant matters at the Ocean Club and to avoid misrepresentations or the promulgation of misinformation either deliberately or through nondisclosure.  For example: What transparency to Owners has the Board shown when, within the past few weeks, Owners have complained about roof leaks into their 6th floor villa's, after spending millions of dollars on repairs of the roof, the majority coming from charges to owners, the defective condition may still not to be rectified and, as you may recall, this atrocious condition is what caused the formation of the Concerned Owners Group;  

     2. Your refusal to acknowledge that your statements to Owners that the Aruba Court required you to call for a special meeting of Owners for a By Law change was not true.   Rather, you chose to spend over $58,000.00 of Owners' funds in mailing costs to promote a proposed By Law change which was drafted by the Board and MVCI in a format designed to mislead Owners and was not what the Concerned Owners or the Aruba Court had ever requested therefore rendering the entire process a total waste of Owners funds;

   3. Your refusal to acknowledge that your statement sent to owners stating that the Concerned Owners were seeking Owner contact information which would be made available to the public and could be used for telemarketing purposes was misleading and not true (and is hypocritical in light of the release and continued use - intentional or not - of AOC Owner contact information by MVCI for sales purposes); 

   4. Your refusal to acknowledge to AOC Owners the truth of the proposed By Law change ballot question and the true mathematical nature and importance of the vote. The Board has misleadingly stated that,  "... the Board reconfirmed that, by an overwhelming vote of 87%, Owners made it clear to the Board that they did not want their personal information made public to anyone including a fellow Ocean Club owner..."  The By Law amendment, as written by the Board and Marriott, was one that even concerned Owners would have voted against.  It did not present to the Owners the Concerned Owners' intent and the response did not represent a majority of the Owners, less than 40% of all the Owners voted on the issue and 87% of 40% is less then 35% of the Owners (which is not a majority);

    5. Your refusal to inform the owners of how the allegedly over $189,000.00 was spent to defend against the Concerned Owners.   You should explain why, upon review of just a small portions of the invoices by a Concerned Owner, legal bills were found, all with no details, including an invoice for over $36,000.00 to send your attorney to meet with Marriott officials in Orlando; invoice # 06685 for $21,548.00 - attention Board member Steve Richards for 72 emails and phone calls to Board members; invoice #06796 for $3,097.00 for 32 emails and 3 telephone calls;  invoice # 07120 for $2,496.00 for 11 emails; and invoice 06888 for $3,848.00 for 29 emails. These invoices total approximately $66,989.00!  In the interest of transparency, we respectfully DEMAND production of the 144 emails that cost us over $30,000.00 or, on average about $215.20 per email of Owner funds.  Also, there was an invoice for $3,848.00  for undocumented translations, yet when Owners asked for any court documents to be translated the Board stated that none were available.  Every owner should ask themselves, why is the Board and MVCI spending Owner funds to prevent Owner to Owner contact - what are they afraid of and who are they protecting?; 

    6. Your refusal to initiate and inform the Owners why you have not provided a forum for Owner to Owner uncensored contact on your web site, www.arubaoceanclub.com, and your refusal to allow for the annual meeting to be recorded or broadcast as requested by Owners so that all Owners can better participate or observe the proceeding;

    7. Your refusal to inform the owners that you have continued spending legal fees after we had agreed to try to work out issues without incurring further legal fees;

    8. Your refusal to stop the continued harassment by MVCI staff against Concerned Owners who have the right to disseminate Concerned Owner information cards at the Ocean Club and your refusal to acknowledge or explain how it is that Corey Guest, our GM, who stated at the annual meeting that he did not have contact with Aruba Today newspaper which removed the Concerned Owners advertisement informing all Owners of their web site, www.aocconcernedowner.com,  subsequently stated to a Judge in Court that he did have such contact;

    9. Your refusal to allow owner proxies to be counted as votes in elections by apparently going along with MVCI's change to the proxy form for only AOC Owners without your approval in violation of the Bylaws.  Marriott's action and your acceptance of adding the word "NOT", in allowing for proxy votes only for items "not" on the agenda has not been used by Marriott in this precise form to our knowledge in its 25 year history at any of its 53 other resorts.   Why was the proxy word changed and why is Marriott spending thousands of dollars to hire a parliamentarian to conduct our meetings?  We sincerely believe that the entire last annual meeting was conducted illegally and all actions taken since are invalid because of the tactics undertaken by the Board and MVCI and we request an impartial review, especially since even after being questioned by an Owner proxy expert, MVCI's own legal counsel raised questions about the process used.  Note that if the concerned owners had prevailed without Marriott's votes - we would now most likely have a majority on the Board - three new Board members who would replace the current members and truly represent the views of owners and not MVCI.   Why is Marriott fighting to keep the current Board members?   Since the Board controls the nomination process the opportunities for new voices are difficult unless we have the ability to inform all owners of the issues; and

   10. Your refusal to seek recovery of what could be estimated to be millions of dollars of lost revenue and reimbursement for owner paid repair and maintenance costs for a building whose defective condition may not have been fully disclosed  to all owners at the time of sale.  

   During the past 18 months our numbers have continued to grow while the Board and MVCI continue to try to block our every move.  The tactics of the MVCI Division of Marriott endorsed by the Board that have been forced upon the AOC owners have been shocking. From lost revenue to the manipulation of the proxy forms and control of Owner meetings, Owners should question what has caused the building infrastructure deterioration earlier than the standard life expectancy by normal building standards  which has forced owners to pay an excessive amount, millions of dollars in the repair and maintenance of our facility?  All this has caused a growing loss of trust and confidence and continue to beg the question as to what representations did Marriott give when they sold us our villa's and what information could MVCI and the Board be afraid of owners finding out about now?

     I look forward to your response and request that you share this letter to all owners by the same methods (handout to all guests upon check-in and the newsletter) that you have disseminated your accusations and insinuations regarding the Concerned owners.   We will share this response at the Aruba Ocean Club also.     

Allan S. Cohen,


----------



## Kelly&Sean

Please stop wasting our money with this stuff.  We could have had a Waterslide put into our pool with the money that it cost to defend this lawsuit that you continue to pursue.  Your point has been made.  Enough already.


----------



## jonnat

*The Dead Horse*

As an owner at Ocean Club I would like to thank the  Concerned Owners Group for continuing to beat a dead horse into the ground at the expense of the Association.  On top of the money I have had to personally expend through my fees to defend my right to not have my personal infomation given to a bunch of whining windbags.  Yes, I will say it again whining windbags and before I am accused of insulting again please let me be clear of my definition and context acccording to Webster's dictionary.  Whining-to complain with or as if with a whine,   Windbag-an exhaustively talkative person .  When this all over and done with a lot of money will have been expended to defend against the 1000 plus owners who by default are being represented by this group without any true permissions ever being asked to be represented and nothing, NOTHING will be accomplished in the end.  May the big corporation win!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dean

This is beyond comical at this point and it is sad at the same time.  Regardless of who's right or wrong it's way past time to either put up or shut up.  Either get a lawyer and go after Marriott and the BOD OR drop it, otherwise it's like the parent who continues to yell at a child but doesn't actually do anything about it.  Writing letters, passing out flyers and making phone calls i useless at this point IMO.  Lack of understanding of why Marriott should not allow cards and flyers to be handed out on property or newspapers sold on property with such information sums it up for me.


----------



## SueDonJ

The BOD sent out a "Fall - Winter 2010/2011 Owner Update" which included a "Lawsuit Update" as well as a copy of the letter dated 8/27/10 that they'd sent to Allan Cohen; presumably this latest post from marksue is Allan's response to that letter.

You're right, Dean, it's beyond comical and sad at this point, but the tone of that letter to Allan makes me believe that it's also time for Allan and the "concerned owners group" to either put up or shut up (as the saying goes.)  It doesn't appear that Marriott is going to let things continue indefinitely, that's for sure.  As much as the legal fees have accumulated to now, I'd be worried that Marriott might force an ending with a full-court press that could make the accumulated fees look like pocket change.  And what choice do they have, realistically, when they're caught between Allan's group's demands and the majority ownership voting to not allow a release of the owners' private contact information?


----------



## Dean

SueDonJ said:


> The BOD sent out a "Fall - Winter 2010/2011 Owner Update" which included a "Lawsuit Update" as well as a copy of the letter dated 8/27/10 that they'd sent to Allan Cohen; presumably this latest post from marksue is Allan's response to that letter.
> 
> You're right, Dean, it's beyond comical and sad at this point, but the tone of that letter to Allan makes me believe that it's also time for Allan and the "concerned owners group" to either put up or shut up (as the saying goes.)  It doesn't appear that Marriott is going to let things continue indefinitely, that's for sure.  As much as the legal fees have accumulated to now, I'd be worried that Marriott might force an ending with a full-court press that could make the accumulated fees look like pocket change.  And what choice do they have, realistically, when they're caught between Allan's group's demands and the majority ownership voting to not allow a release of the owners' private contact information?


To be honest, that's far more than I figured they would do and likely, far more than they should do, as I see no way Allan would adhere to the conditions of the letter even though they are more than reasonable, IMO.  

I find this part extremely interesting and while I suspect it accurately reflects the words used, it clearly does not reflect the intent of the group in question.


> your fundamental issue is that there is no ability for owner-to-owner contact to openly discuss issues of mutual concern or interest, exchange ideas, etc.


If Allan accepts their proposal, I predict he won't be able to adhere to the conditions and will be looking at a lawsuit naming him personally but going beyond the simple breach of contract and seeking to recoup all expenses for all items related to the entire issue.  The reality is that the offer does everything that is requested and reasonable as it is clearly NOT reasonable to deliver the contact information directly to the group.


----------



## london

*2 Years and Many Posts and Views*

This thread has to be a record setting one, with almost 3000 posts, and almost 150,000 views.

It brings out the many facets of timeshare ownership, BOD actions, and brand name quality issues.

Perhaps, the issues will be resolved in a satisfactory manner to the majority of the owners.


----------



## lovearuba

*That would be nice*



london said:


> This thread has to be a record setting one, with almost 3000 posts, and almost 150,000 views.
> 
> It brings out the many facets of timeshare ownership, BOD actions, and brand name quality issues.
> 
> Perhaps, the issues will be resolved in a satisfactory manner to the majority of the owners.



I am actually not certain if this is the post with the most comments or if there is another. I think the important thing to consider is how many actual posters there are.  Many posts are from the same posters that post to almost all posts on this site.  Others just drop by to take a look and vent.  It keeps the issue alive regardless of what side you favor


----------



## windje2000

lovearuba said:


> I am actually not certain if this is the post with the most comments or if there is another. I think the important thing to consider is how many actual posters there are.  Many posts are from the same posters that post to almost all posts on this site.  Others just drop by to take a look and vent.  It keeps the issue alive regardless of what side you favor



Click on the headings above each of the columns (replies and views) and the board sorts high to low on that parameter.

It's #2 as measured by comments.  It's #1 as measured by views.


----------



## dioxide45

windje2000 said:


> Click on the headings above each of the columns (replies and views) and the board sorts high to low on that parameter.
> 
> It's #2 as measured by comments.  It's #1 as measured by views.



It isn't far behind the speculation thread for the #1 spot. Though I don't know if it will garner enough attention going forward to pass it.


----------



## griffer331

I hesitate to post this as this thread took on a life of its own.  But i think it's important because there was a ton of discussion about this.

We received this as part of our Spring Summer update.

It appears the lawyers are still going to be making money,







Litigation Update
As mentioned in our Fall-Winter 2010/2011 Owner Update, over the past few years, the Association has been defending lawsuits filed against it in Aruban Court by an Aruba Ocean Club Owner, Allan Cohen.  This Owner, Allan Cohen has demanded access to the personal email and home mailing address information for all Aruba Ocean Club Owners.  We are pleased to report that on March 16, 2011, the Aruban Court, for the second time, issued its verdict in favor of the Association.  This means that the Association’s governing documents have been upheld and our Owners' personal contact information will be protected.

For the sake of clarity and transparency the following is a translation of the ruling by the Aruban Court:
“Judge in this Court, adjudicating:

Declares Cohen [Plaintiff] to have no cause for action, in as far as the claims serve to order AOC to give Cohen data from the register; 
Dismisses Cohen’s other claims; 
Orders Cohen to pay the costs of the proceedings, until this day estimated at Afl. 3,150 in respect to attorney’s fees. 
This judgment was given by Mr. H.E. de Boer, Judge, and was pronounced in the public session of Wednesday, March 16, 2011 in the presence of the Clerk of the Court.”

We had hoped that this verdict would finally put to rest the expensive and unmeritorious lawsuits filed by the plaintiff against the Association over the past few years.  Unfortunately, we have recently learned that the plaintiff has formally filed an appeal which will force the Association to continue to pay for legal expenses to defend your privacy.  The Association’s Aruba attorneys tell us that the appeal could take up to a year or more and estimate that it will cost the Association well in excess of $10,000.00 to defend the appeal.  As a result, Allan Cohen will have forced the Association to pay in excess of $200,000.00 in legal and related expenses over the past several years.

Your Board Members have personally reached out directly to the plaintiff on several separate occasions over the past year-and-a-half in a good faith effort to find a compromise that would put this matter to rest once and for all.  Knowing that the plaintiff’s stated objective is to be able to communicate with Ocean Club Owners through his personal website, the Board offered to provide Owners with the plaintiff’s personal website address in a series of regular Owner communications.  Unfortunately, Allan Cohen flatly rejected the Board’s settlement offers and refused to enter into negotiations.  The Board is as frustrated over this matter as many other Aruba Ocean Club Owners are.


----------



## Dean

griffer331 said:


> I hesitate to post this as this thread took on a life of its own.  But i think it's important because there was a ton of discussion about this.
> 
> We received this as part of our Spring Summer update.
> 
> It appears the lawyers are still going to be making money,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Litigation Update
> As mentioned in our Fall-Winter 2010/2011 Owner Update, over the past few years, the Association has been defending lawsuits filed against it in Aruban Court by an Aruba Ocean Club Owner, Allan Cohen.  This Owner, Allan Cohen has demanded access to the personal email and home mailing address information for all Aruba Ocean Club Owners.  We are pleased to report that on March 16, 2011, the Aruban Court, for the second time, issued its verdict in favor of the Association.  This means that the Association’s governing documents have been upheld and our Owners' personal contact information will be protected.
> 
> For the sake of clarity and transparency the following is a translation of the ruling by the Aruban Court:
> “Judge in this Court, adjudicating:
> 
> Declares Cohen [Plaintiff] to have no cause for action, in as far as the claims serve to order AOC to give Cohen data from the register;
> Dismisses Cohen’s other claims;
> Orders Cohen to pay the costs of the proceedings, until this day estimated at Afl. 3,150 in respect to attorney’s fees.
> This judgment was given by Mr. H.E. de Boer, Judge, and was pronounced in the public session of Wednesday, March 16, 2011 in the presence of the Clerk of the Court.”
> 
> We had hoped that this verdict would finally put to rest the expensive and unmeritorious lawsuits filed by the plaintiff against the Association over the past few years.  Unfortunately, we have recently learned that the plaintiff has formally filed an appeal which will force the Association to continue to pay for legal expenses to defend your privacy.  The Association’s Aruba attorneys tell us that the appeal could take up to a year or more and estimate that it will cost the Association well in excess of $10,000.00 to defend the appeal.  As a result, Allan Cohen will have forced the Association to pay in excess of $200,000.00 in legal and related expenses over the past several years.
> 
> Your Board Members have personally reached out directly to the plaintiff on several separate occasions over the past year-and-a-half in a good faith effort to find a compromise that would put this matter to rest once and for all.  Knowing that the plaintiff’s stated objective is to be able to communicate with Ocean Club Owners through his personal website, the Board offered to provide Owners with the plaintiff’s personal website address in a series of regular Owner communications.  Unfortunately, Allan Cohen flatly rejected the Board’s settlement offers and refused to enter into negotiations.  The Board is as frustrated over this matter as many other Aruba Ocean Club Owners are.


Regardless of who's right or wrong, this was a predictable outcome including court costs.  If he's not careful, Allan could end up being responsible for all of the cost incurred, see that $200K figure above.  I thank you for the update, wondered where this was going.


----------



## KathyPet

*Somehow this seems appropriate here*

http://www.scri8e.com/h/Hallo_NO_DIRECT_LINKING/ghouls/pot-stirrer.gif


----------



## Dean

KathyPet said:


> http://www.scri8e.com/h/Hallo_NO_DIRECT_LINKING/ghouls/pot-stirrer.gif


I don't believe so based on my post or the previous one.  As noted much earlier in this thread, having an opinion and not automatically agreeing with the "concerned owners group" is not the same as taking Marriott's side but it's looking more and more like Marriott's the one reasonable party in this issue.


----------



## KathyPet

Dean,  My link was not intended for you in particular.  Just my opinion of the entire mess as a whole


----------



## Dean

KathyPet said:


> Dean,  My link was not intended for you in particular.  Just my opinion of the entire mess as a whole


Kathy, two posts since Nov, mine and the other.  I don't think "stirring the pot" accurately portrays the overall situation unless you're referring to the originator of the law suit.


----------

