# [2011] Marriott HOA Board Member Data that Marriott Does Not Disclose



## EducatedConsumer (Mar 13, 2011)

*To me, a far bigger issue, is the number of Marriott HOA Board members who serve concurrently on multiple Marriott HOA Boards, and who have been fixtures on those boards for ten, fifteen, or more years. It has been my experience that once Marriott is "cozy" with a Board Member, that they make no effort to encourage change to the makeup of their HOA Boards (they take perfunctory steps to make it look like they are going through motions to enlist new members, but my personal opinion is that those efforts are insincere and ineffective). And Marriott does not disclose how many Marriott HOA Boards each of their HOA Board Members serve on, how long they've served on each of those Boards, or how many votes the Developer/Management Company is casting. I imagine you'd be surprised to learn that some Marriott HOA Board Members are members of two or three or more HOA Boards, and have been members of those Boards for in some cases ten, fifteen or more years.*


----------



## AMJ (Mar 13, 2011)

Some of the HOA Board members are Marriott employees. Several Board members are General Managers or Regional General Managers at other resorts.


----------



## SueDonJ (Mar 13, 2011)

Some resorts, those still in development stages, have seat(s) on the boards that are filled by Marriott employees without a need for them to be voted in.  Until the resorts are sold out the governing docs stipulate that Marriott holds a certain number of board seat(s) and voting shares.  As more and more re-acquired Weeks are conveyed to the Trust, Marriott stands to gain more seats at resorts which have been sold out.

I would like to know if the candidates for my resorts hold seats on other boards and for how long they've done so.  One or two have mentioned it in that little blurb the candidate sends in with his/her application but it doesn't seem to be required for them to disclose it.  What would it take for that to be a requirement - if it's not stipulated in the nomination process that's outlined in the governing docs, is a majority vote required to make it a stipulation?  I'd guess yes.


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Mar 13, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> I would like to know if the candidates for my resorts hold seats on other boards and for how long they've done so.  One or two have mentioned it in that little blurb the candidate sends in with his/her application but it doesn't seem to be required for them to disclose it.  What would it take for that to be a requirement - if it's not stipulated in the nomination process that's outlined in the governing docs, is a majority vote required to make it a stipulation?  I'd guess yes.



We are in complete agreement.

I don't believe any changes would be required to the CC&R's to enable/require Marriott to fully disclose the level of engagement of existing Board Members or candidates for a position on the Board. At the very least, I believe Marriott should disclose the number of Marriott HOA Boards that each Board Member/candidate serves on, and the length of time that they have served on each board. Two thoughts: (1) I suspect that many Marriott Owners would be very surprised to learn how many "career" HOA Board Members Marriott has (e.g. served on multiple boards and/or multiple terms), and (2) my impression is that as Marriott "gets cozy" with certain long-time Board members, and gains confidence in their "predictability," that Marriott does not want to rock the boat, and would not be supportive of this level of disclosure and transparency.

My point of reference (above) is not to Marriott employees who serve as HOA Board Members (in "Developer" seats), but to non-Marriott employees who have spent 10 or more years as Board Members of multiple Marriott HOA Boards. Obviously, if Marriott likes how the career Board Members vote on one Board, they'll want that Board Member's participation on other HOA boards.

If Marriott Vacation Club's "Chief Customer Officer" really considers "customer advocacy" to be amongst their roles and responsibilities, that person would be one person to shepherd this along. I'd expect some of the "career Board Members" to object to this level of disclosure/transparency.


HELP THOSE IMPACTED BY THE RECENT TRAGEDIES IN JAPAN, AND EARN AMERICAN AIRLINES AADVANTAGE MILES:
http://www.aa.com/i18n/urls/disasterrelief.jsp


----------



## dioxide45 (Mar 13, 2011)

My bet would be that most of the "career board members" are employees. I would suspect fewer are only owners.

When members come up for proxy, it never hurts to ask more questions. They don't have to disclose, but may tell if asked.


----------



## davidn247 (Mar 13, 2011)

Fully supportive.

With the new spinco, I expect MVCI to issue corporate governance rules about the new company, especially as it is going to be listed on stock exchange. It is surely the opportunity to review how MVCI describes its relation with owners and to clarify these HOA Board subjects (mentioned here).

While being on several Boards can beneficial to owners (bring experience, etc), it is clear that a certain rotation needs to happen over time and is usually healthly. A certain limitation in time (max. 10 years for instance).


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Mar 13, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> My bet would be that most of the "career board members" are employees. I would suspect fewer are only owners.
> 
> When members come up for proxy, it never hurts to ask more questions. They don't have to disclose, but may tell if asked.



There was a time (not long ago) that Marriott would host a meeting for all of the HOA Board Members. I met many of them. You would be surprised how many of the "career Board members" are NOT Marriott employees. I am guessing that there are 10-15 Marriott HOA Board members who serve on multiple HOA boards, and who have served terms of 10+ years (and who are NOT Marriott employees).


----------



## Robert D (Mar 13, 2011)

I never thought about this problem but was objecting to Marriott employees serving on HOA boards, which I think is a problem.  If this is true, it's just as big a problem with the same result that owners' interests are not being protected by the board.  By the way, I don't think this is something that's isolated to Marriott and suspect that the same problem exists at other big name resort chains.


----------



## TJCNewYork (Mar 14, 2011)

*Term Length and Term Limits*

Based upon the Annual Meeting Notices received for our Florida-based resorts, the state legislature enacted a bill in 2009 which had an impact on one of our resorts By-laws regarding Term Length and Term Limits.  Apparently, there was a conflict between the statute (which prescribed 1 year term limits for BoD members) and the by-laws which presribed a longer term but a limit on the number of consecutive terms. Needless to say, it was confusing.

My takeaway/understanding is that HOA/COA (Home Owner Association/Condominium Owner Association) by-laws coupled with state statute merit review regarding term length and term limits.  ARDA regularly updates the US Timeshare Regulation Matrix.  Click here for a PDF.


----------



## wof45 (Mar 14, 2011)

a one-year term limit sounds pretty dumb to me.
it means that the board would always have no experience, so they would have to rely even more on the property manager than they do today.

So we would have some combination of the property manager running the show, or activist HOA members changing policies and practices year to year, with no stability.


----------



## TJCNewYork (Mar 14, 2011)

Given the learning curve that on-boarding takes and the language of some by-laws, the statute's impact proved disruptive to several timeshare COAs.  Not recalling all the details, the Florida language prescribed 1 year terms (length) as well as a limit on the number of consecutive terms (term limits). In the worst case scenario, BoD members had to run every year.  Last I heard, the statute now only applies to condominium COAs and not timeshares COAs.

The main takeaway is that by-laws and state statutes largely influence term length and term limits of BoD COAs. The laws in Florida may be very different than Utah or California. Now, what happens outside of the US is totally another matter.


----------



## dioxide45 (Mar 14, 2011)

I think the Florida law that went in to effect last year was for one year terms with no term limit. It could have caused entire boards to "turn over" in any given year. We had a special vote in 2009 at MGV where they were able to amend the bylaws to have two year staggered terms starting in 2010. Apparently MGV board was able to work around the new law or the new law permitted for this provision if done through a new vote. Harbour Lake didn't do the same.


----------



## TJCNewYork (Mar 15, 2011)

*Multiple Week Owners Serving On Multiple COAs Is Not A Conflict of Interest*



> amend the bylaws to have two year staggered terms starting in 2010.


The Florida legislature amended the statute and the new law SB 1196 exempted timeshares from 1 year term limits which was passed earlier in 2008.  However, as you point out some COA's amended the by-laws to allow for 2 year staggered terms.  

One of the provisions of the statute, introduces a certification requirement that BoD members must submit in writing.  For clarity and convenience, here is an excerpt from the red-line version of SB 1196:

  653       b. Within 90 days after being elected or appointed to the
  654  board, each newly elected or appointed director shall certify in
  655  writing to the secretary of the association that he or she has
  656  read the association’s declaration of condominium, articles of
  657  incorporation, bylaws, and current written policies; that he or
  658  she will work to uphold such documents and policies to the best
  659  of his or her ability; and that he or she will faithfully
  660  discharge his or her fiduciary responsibility to the
  661  association’s members. In lieu of this written certification,
  662  the newly elected or appointed director may submit a certificate
  663  of satisfactory completion of the educational curriculum
  664  administered by a division-approved condominium education
  665  provider. A director who fails to timely file the written
  666  certification or educational certificate is suspended from
  667  service on the board until he or she complies with the
  668  provisions of this subparagraph. The board may temporarily fill
  669  the vacancy during the period of suspension. The secretary shall
  670  cause the association to retain a director’s written
  671  certification or educational certificate for inspection by the
  672  members for 5 years after a director’s election. Failure to have
  673  such written certification or educational certificate on file
  674  does not affect the validity of any action.


Staying on topic, given the number of multiple-week owners, an owner able to serve on more than one board in the same state or multiple states is potentially an asset to the COAs as well as the developer.  

When I deposit and exchange to another resort, I demand and expect the same level of quality and service experienced at my home resorts.  Intuitively, multiple-week owners who also serve on multiple COA's play an active and important role working shoulder-to-shoulder with the developer to achieve exactly that.   

Since the BoD role is by definition a fiduciary responsibility, the annual budget is one instrument that can make or break a resort.  For example, a component of the annual budget is the Reserves which are used to fund capital improvements and/or replacement of major assets.  As we all know, all resorts undergo a cyclical refurbishment process.  Many, for example just replaced all TVs with Flat Screen Panels.  In order to do so, MFs were raised to fund the cash flows needed for this improvement.

Multiple week owners volunteering to serve on their home resort COAs are entitled to do so by their by-laws.  The by-laws provide all owners with the same rights whether or not they are employees of the developer.  Keeping in mind that they also pay MFs, it is not a conflict of interest  to other owners when they work side-by-side to try to upgrade the home  resort and keep MFs in check, in my opinion.      

Recognizing the potential for flaws, I also agree that who volunteers vs. who gets to run is probably the challenge we're wrestling with.


----------



## dioxide45 (Mar 15, 2011)

I think you need to be careful in the use of the word "limits". I think the law required one year terms, but no limitation on the limits as long as the person was voted in each year.


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Mar 16, 2011)

TJCNewYork said:


> Given the learning curve that on-boarding takes and the language of some by-laws, the statute's impact proved disruptive to several timeshare COAs.  Not recalling all the details, the Florida language prescribed 1 year terms (length) as well as a limit on the number of consecutive terms (term limits). In the worst case scenario, BoD members had to run every year.  Last I heard, the statute now only applies to condominium COAs and not timeshares COAs.
> 
> The main takeaway is that by-laws and state statutes largely influence term length and term limits of BoD COAs. The laws in Florida may be very different than Utah or California. Now, what happens outside of the US is totally another matter.



My curiosity was peaked on this issue, so I made a call to ARDA today to learn a bit more about it. I learned that there are only a few states that have laws that address the term and/or number of terms that an HOA Board Member may serve.

While Florida appears unique, the observation that I raised at the outset remains, in my opinion, an unfortunate reality. To my way of thinking, Marriott should disclose the background of all candidates for election on an HOA Board, so that one knows which candidates for election serve(d) on multiple Marriott Boards and/or have served multiple terms. To me, the greater the number, the more experience the member may have, but with that comes a "cozy factor (with Marriott)" that I am not comfortable with, and a self-limiting byproduct of limiting "fresh" ideas and broader involvement (of owners) on the Board. 

I am in complete agreement with others that continuity is a good thing, but I find the notion that some HOA Board members are serving on multiple Marriott HOA Boards and/or have served on those boards for eight, ten, or fifteen or more years, something that each owner should be aware of at the time that they cast their vote for Board members.

If the owners choose to sustain a Board that more resembles a museum so be it, as long as the details of each Board Members level of engagement is disclosed.

I'm not sure what method is best to encourage Marriott to address this, but I do sense that Marriott enjoys the "predictability" that accompanies their Board members that serve on multiple boards and/or have served multiple terms, and would prefer not to address this.

In a separate but related issue, I'm not certain how I feel about the same Marriott employees serving in Developer seats on an HOA Board for four, five, or more years; I guess that's the Developers prerogative.


----------



## dioxide45 (Mar 16, 2011)

Do you think that those that serve on multiple boards do so to get free/discounted vacations? They just travel around the times of the annual meetings and get their airfare paid for and perhaps a few meals while they are at it?


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Mar 16, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> Do you think that those that serve on multiple boards do so to get free/discounted vacations? They just travel around the times of the annual meetings and get their airfare paid for and perhaps a few meals while they are at it?



No, not at all. I think they are a hard working group. Maybe a bit lonely, and looking for things to do, but very hard working. I don't think the average owner would have any idea how hard their HOA Board Members work for them.

However, I do think that occasional change and fresh input is healthy, and I stand firm that the longevity of Board Members should be disclosed. If the owners want to re-elect the same members year after year that's their choice, but it should be an "informed choice" to my thinking.


----------



## dioxide45 (Mar 16, 2011)

EducatedConsumer said:


> No, not at all. I think they are a hard working group.



I am not discounting their hard work, but there is a side benefit to this.


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Mar 16, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> I am not discounting their hard work, but there is a side benefit to this.



I wish you'd give being a Marriott HOA Board Member a try.......I'd be interested in hearing about the "side benefits" after your give it a spin.

Conference Calls can be two or three a month, at an hour or more a clip;

Small groups of Board Members can take on Board projects and assignments, that can be very time-consuming;

A trip for a Board Meeting generally means an afternoon arrival, it could include a "working dinner," meetings all day the next day, walk-throughs of the resort and villas, endless hours of listening to finance people, lawyers, presentations by potential contractors/designers, reviews of guest and employee satisfaction surveys, listening to owner feedback, short and long range planning, etc...... and out the next day. Yes, it's true that if one chooses to extend their trip, and it doesn't change the airfare to create an additional burden for the HOA, they can do that, but the HOA pays for a night or two of lodging, and that's it.

Not much glamour.........the job can be very gratifying and eye-opening.


----------



## BobG7734 (Mar 17, 2011)

This thread is another example of getting out of hand.  If you attend the HOA annual meetings there is always ample time to ask questions and provide input.  I have made it a point to attend every HOA meeting at the Custom House.  All of the places I own they always ask for participation and applications to join the HOA.  Sure there are perks for being on the board (airfare/lodging) but being able to support your onwership right is worth it.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 17, 2011)

EducatedConsumer said:


> I wish you'd give being a Marriott HOA Board Member a try.......I'd be interested in hearing about the "side benefits" after your give it a spin.
> 
> Conference Calls can be two or three a month, at an hour or more a clip;
> 
> ...



Excellent summary of an involved Board members time required. It is not a vacation, it is serious business and needs to be treated as such.  I am concerned about the obvious conflict of a majority of Board members owing their very jobs to the group they are supposed to monitor.  Even of they don't mean to it is hard to ignore the impact of a owner based decision vs the bottom line of the Corporation / management that PAYS them.  Far better to have a minority of developer/management members if they must but leave the majority in the hands of the individual owners and give them the ultimate say as it is designed to work.


----------



## TJCNewYork (Mar 17, 2011)

EducatedConsumer said:


> My curiosity was peaked



Very influential BoD.  The organization was very proactive in obtaining the outcomes already noted.  In fact, if anyone is interested, their annual meeting and convention is a few weeks away and hosted at the Orlando World Center featured in Gorman's Getaway.


----------



## TJCNewYork (Mar 17, 2011)

EducatedConsumer said:


> Florida appears unique


 
Well maintained timeshares are essential  to a thriving economy in Florida. Based upon the Annual Meeting Notices, owners in Florida are aware that the Florida Condominium Act prescribes that an HOA/COA include as part  of the annual budget, a reserve schedule. * Reserves must be set aside* for any asset that the HOA/COA is  responsibile for with a replacement cost  of $10,000.00 or more.  But, the statute also provides that owners can elect not to have fully-funded reserves.

 The lions share of MVC resorts, if not all, are way ahead of the curve when  compared with non-MVC on design, quality and workmanship. To maintain a high level of owner/guest satisfaction and a thriving economy, COA board  members have to work closely with MVC to make sure that the funds set aside as reserves fulfill the spirit and intent of the statute.  This means that all assets are completely and accurately *documented**.* 

During MVC refurb cycles, some assets are dropped (TVs, videocassette  players) and others added (Flat Panel TVs, DVD players). In Florida and elsewhere, MVC  recommends that COAs hire an independent 3rd party with certified  professionals to prepare a Reserve Study upon which reserve funds can be  determined.  

MVC refurb schedules are generally 5 and 10 year cycles.  If the reserve study is not current, incomplete or the replacement cost  of an asset rises faster than anticipated or an asset reaches its useful  life prior to the schedule, it can be very challenging for a BoD; as no one likes  assessments or sudden rises in MFs.

On point, board member continuity is absolutely essential, IMO because  the learning curve and the time required can be  overwhelming. Taking care to strike a balance between member continuity and member  rotation can be a challenge, but not as challenging as having an  inexperienced BoD.

Considering that Florida is unique in prescribing requirements  like reserves in the annual budget, what does a COA do in a state (or a  country) where the law is silent about such matters?  Wouldn't it be  logical for a COA to recruit their owners who are BoD members with such experience?   

Having said that, BOD composition is governed by by-laws. If changes are  needed in the selection or composition of a resort BoD, they must be  implemented by amending the by-laws.  Further, as defined in a resorts  by-laws, it is the role of the COA's Nominating Committee to verify a  candidates BoD experience and ensure that the skills represented in the  slate is what the COA needs in order to realize their objectives. 

Based upon 15+ years of Annual Meeting Notices, experienced candidates running for an MVC board  typically do disclose prior and concurrent BoD experience in their  biographical summary.  IMO, it's the right thing to do and to the  candidates advantage to disclose.


----------



## pwrshift (Mar 17, 2011)

In view of the 'new plan' from Marriott, what good does it do to discuss HOA participation when DC members can't vote against Marriott?  The thread on joining or not joining shows that more than half of TUG multiple resort owners have joined and elected to let Marriott decide their vote for them.


----------



## SueDonJ (Mar 17, 2011)

pwrshift said:


> In view of the 'new plan' from Marriott, what good does it do to discuss HOA participation when DC members can't vote against Marriott?  The thread on joining or not joining shows that more than half of TUG multiple resort owners have joined and elected to let Marriott decide their vote for them.



At some point between the roll-out and now, the voting limitation that restricted enrolled Owners from voting against the interests of the DC was removed from the Enrollment Agreement document.  Several of us have looked for something in the other documents that might support the restriction but it doesn't appear to exist anymore.

Don't know what this means for those of us whose Enrollment Agreement did contain the stipulation, or if the folks who purchase DC Points are restricted by something in their documents ...

Here's a post from when we realized the change.


----------



## TJCNewYork (Mar 17, 2011)

pwrshift said:


> In view of the 'new plan' from Marriott, what good does it do to discuss HOA participation when DC members can't vote against Marriott?  The thread on joining or not joining shows that more than half of TUG multiple resort owners have joined and elected to let Marriott decide their vote for them.



Interesting question. It is my understanding that what my wife and I own is subject to governance outlined in our resort's by-laws and the Florida statutes mentioned above.  So understanding how the by-laws and statutes impact and protect vacation ownership is beneficial in several ways, IMO.

The thread on joining/not joining illustrates how polarizing the new program is.   Based upon owner feedback since June 20, 2010, the polarization seems much more pronounced than reflected at TUG.  

Personally, I have not enrolled my weeks with DC nor have I purchased points in the land trust.  After reviewing the Florida Condominum Act, it is not clear how points or land trust fit into or are protected by the statute.

Until the dust settles, new DC owner participation in a HOA/COA board(s) may or may not be pure fantasy.  Until then, legacy owner participation in legacy HOA/COA boards is status quo as established by legacy resort by-laws and statute, in my opinion.


----------



## TJCNewYork (Mar 17, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> Here's a post from when we realized the change.



Susan - Just wondering... you and Cmore are residents of Massachusetts and Minnesota respectively.  According to MVC's State and Legal Disclosure quoted below, the language suggests that MVCD is not registered in MN, but is registered in MA.  Could the voting restriction be possibly related? 

*"Massachusetts*

 Marriott's Harbour Lake and Marriott Vacation Club Destinations are  registered projects with the Board of Registration of Real Estate  Brokers and Salespersons. The other projects referenced within this site  are not an offer to Massachusetts residents. 

*Minnesota*

 Marriott's Canyon Villas and Marriott's Shadow Ridge are registered  projects with the Department of Commerce. The other projects referenced  within this site are not an offer to Minnesota residents."


----------



## wof45 (Mar 17, 2011)

if I were buying points, I would probably take a somewhat different view of the HOA.

MVCI has two income flows:  sales of points and fees for service.

In the long term, it is in MVCI best interest to have well-run resorts, with good amenities and low MFs, because that is what it will need in order to sell points to either existing or new customers.

Many customers look at yearly MF and compare them with the cost of vacation lodging at a place like the resort they are visiting.  Rightly or wrongly, they do not spend a lot of time evaluating how to distribute the actual buy in cost.

So, to me, MVCI has no chance of being successful if their amenities are not good, if the units are not in good shape and if the MF are not reasonable.  So, they will find a way to do it, or they will go out of business, and senior management won't let them go out of business.


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Mar 17, 2011)

TJCNewYork said:


> Well maintained timeshares are essential  to a thriving economy in Florida. Based upon the Annual Meeting Notices, owners in Florida are aware that the Florida Condominium Act prescribes that an HOA/COA include as part  of the annual budget, a reserve schedule. * Reserves must be set aside* for any asset that the HOA/COA is  responsibile for with a replacement cost  of $10,000.00 or more.  But, the statute also provides that owners can elect not to have fully-funded reserves.
> 
> The lions share of MVC resorts, if not all, are way ahead of the curve when  compared with non-MVC on design, quality and workmanship. To maintain a high level of owner/guest satisfaction and a thriving economy, COA board  members have to work closely with MVC to make sure that the funds set aside as reserves fulfill the spirit and intent of the statute.  This means that all assets are completely and accurately *documented**.*
> 
> ...



I hope the mainstay of my message is not lost here.....

It does not take a change of the CC&R's for Marriott to take the admirable and forthright route of requiring that candidates for Board positions disclose the number of Marriott HOA Boards that they serve on, and the length of the terms that they have served. That information alone (perhaps, with the addition of the same information for the existing Board members (those currently seated)), will allow the owners to understand (1) the extent to which Board members serve on multiple Marriott Boards, (2) the length of time that each members have served on a resort's Board, and (3) the make-up of the Board (e.g. a majority of members who have served multiple terms (e.g. 8 years, 10 years, 15 years)). With that information, owners can conclude the exent to which a Board has a healthy make up of diverse members (in terms of the number of terms that they have served, and the number of Marriott HOA Boards that they serve on ), vs a  board that may be considered by some as inbred and not one with some fresh members at the table. Again, I think most owners would be very surprised by the number of Board members that are "lifers" on some boards, and the number of Board members who serve on multiple Boards (? equating to being especially cozy with Marriott). If Marriott wanted to disclose this information, they would have done it long before now.


----------



## SueDonJ (Mar 18, 2011)

TJCNewYork said:


> Susan - Just wondering... you and Cmore are residents of Massachusetts and Minnesota respectively.  According to MVC's State and Legal Disclosure quoted below, the language suggests that MVCD is not registered in MN, but is registered in MA.  Could the voting restriction be possibly related?
> 
> *"Massachusetts*
> 
> ...



  Dunno.  I'm not sure how what's registered in each state affects what's available to anyone who wants to enroll or purchase in the DC.  But the voting restriction in the Enrollment Agreement doesn't appear to have been lifted for only certain states.  What happens if you click through to enroll your Weeks?  I know you're not enrolling but you can review the Agreement without committing to it - maybe you can be part of an experiment?  

Anybody else, too - sign in to your my-vacationclub.com account, click on "Enroll now" - "I understand" - "Start Enrolling Now" and then scroll down through the "Enrollment Terms and Conditions" box to 1.d.  Does anyone see the 1.e. voting stipulation anymore? 

I think this is fairly significant and it's surprising that more people haven't mentioned it, because when the DC was rolled out there was a lot of discussion about how that stipulation was enough by itself to not enroll.  I'd like to figure out definitively if it's actually been removed, and, if so what that means now for those of us who enrolled with it in place.


----------



## SueDonJ (Mar 18, 2011)

wof45 said:


> if I were buying points, I would probably take a somewhat different view of the HOA.
> 
> MVCI has two income flows:  sales of points and fees for service.
> 
> ...





EducatedConsumer said:


> I hope the mainstay of my message is not lost here.....
> 
> It does not take a change of the CC&R's for Marriott to take the admirable and forthright route of requiring that candidates for Board positions disclose the number of Marriott HOA Boards that they serve on, and the length of the terms that they have served. That information alone (perhaps, with the addition of the same information for the existing Board members (those currently seated)), will allow the owners to understand (1) the extent to which Board members serve on multiple Marriott Boards, (2) the length of time that each members have served on a resort's Board, and (3) the make-up of the Board (e.g. a majority of members who have served multiple terms (e.g. 8 years, 10 years, 15 years)). With that information, owners can conclude the exent to which a Board has a healthy make up of diverse members (in terms of the number of terms that they have served, and the number of Marriott HOA Boards that they serve on ), vs a  board that may be considered by some as inbred and not one with some fresh members at the table. Again, I think most owners would be very surprised by the number of Board members that are "lifers" on some boards, and the number of Board members who serve on multiple Boards (? equating to being especially cozy with Marriott). If Marriott wanted to disclose this information, they would have done it long before now.



Agree with both of you.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 18, 2011)

*So what does your resort do?*



EducatedConsumer said:


> Again, I think most owners would be very surprised by the number of Board members that are "lifers" on some boards, and the number of Board members who serve on multiple Boards (? equating to being especially cozy with Marriott). If Marriott wanted to disclose this information, they would have done it long before now.



Agreed. Instead Marriott appears to do everything they can to obscure who the Board members are & what relationships to Marriott they may have. Hardly a transparent way to operate what should be owner controlled and nearly equally important owner informed resorts. 

If you do the management job well and for reasonable costs there is no reason to hide or to limit candidates to hand picked choices. The operation will be going well and voters will not want to upset the process. If you have ulterior motives or are simply too lazy to do things right then you resort to stacking the Board(s) and limiting who can run.  Look at your resort and see which approach they are taking - it will tell you a great deal about the operation.


----------



## TJCNewYork (Mar 18, 2011)

I would gladly participate if I though something meaningful would emerge from the outcome. But, I have bigger fish to fry and less time to do it nowadays.  Regrets if that sounds dismissive, it's not intended to be. I have alot on my plate. And, the biggest challenge continues to be the value proposition that DC points offer.  




SueDonJ said:


> Dunno.  I'm not sure how what's registered in each state affects what's available to anyone who wants to enroll or purchase in the DC.  But the voting restriction in the Enrollment Agreement doesn't appear to have been lifted for only certain states.  What happens if you click through to enroll your Weeks?  I know you're not enrolling but you can review the Agreement without committing to it - maybe you can be part of an experiment?
> 
> Anybody else, too - sign in to your my-vacationclub.com account, click on "Enroll now" - "I understand" - "Start Enrolling Now" and then scroll down through the "Enrollment Terms and Conditions" box to 1.d.  Does anyone see the 1.e. voting stipulation anymore?
> 
> I think this is fairly significant and it's surprising that more people haven't mentioned it, because when the DC was rolled out there was a lot of discussion about how that stipulation was enough by itself to not enroll.  I'd like to figure out definitively if it's actually been removed, and, if so what that means now for those of us who enrolled with it in place.


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Mar 18, 2011)

timeos2 said:


> Agreed. Instead Marriott appears to do everything they can to obscure who the Board members are & what relationships to Marriott they may have. Hardly a transparent way to operate what should be owner controlled and nearly equally important owner informed resorts.
> 
> If you do the management job well and for reasonable costs there is no reason to hide or to limit candidates to hand picked choices. The operation will be going well and voters will not want to upset the process. If you have ulterior motives or are simply too lazy to do things right then you resort to stacking the Board(s) and limiting who can run.  Look at your resort and see which approach they are taking - it will tell you a great deal about the operation.



Well said.


----------



## TJCNewYork (Mar 18, 2011)

timeos2 said:


> If you do the management job well and for reasonable costs there is no reason to hide or to limit candidates to hand picked choices. The operation will be going well and voters will not want to upset the process. If you have ulterior motives or are simply too lazy to do things right then you resort to stacking the Board(s) and limiting who can run.  Look at your resort and see which approach they are taking - it will tell you a great deal about the operation.



IMO, retaining the most experienced owner candidates for your BoD is justified by the results including, but not limited to stunning refurbishments, consistently high GSS and flat to modest MFs w/o surprise assessments.  If a BoD can achieve that year after year, and my home resort experience is as refreshing and memorable as my first year of occupancy - my wife and I are really happy.  When we exchange and these expectations are met or exceeded, it tells us that that resort's BoD knows what they're doing, too.  Whether or not it's the same people or new people, people sitting on mutliple boards or only on their home resort BoD, these results are my yardstick and speak for themselves.


----------



## Lets have less Greed (Mar 20, 2011)

*HOA ,what other "games "are on the market*

I do understand if marriott exercises there option to vote there developers points, the developer who has not sold his inventory yet ,need as well rights.

HOWEVER in Phuket, Marriott purchased from RNI holdings and Mai kao vacation villas Ltd a Thai entety , contrary to the charter the last 12 remaining units , to act as a "Lead Horse for there Asia points program" the new units Mai kao club is by far not as popular as the Phuket beach club, therefore a lead horse was needed., and now comes another not ethical issue ,this 12 units times 50 x2 have been used to vote in the week owners election.
All this is possible because a timeshare law does not exist in Thailand.


----------



## dioxide45 (Mar 24, 2011)

Okay, for those data junkies, I created a Tab Delimited text file. So if you have Excel or Open Office, it should be very easy to import this in and slice and dice it.

The data file contains all of the board members at all Marriott resorts. The only one not included is Kauai Lagoons as the information was not available. It contains their name, current title, current term. The term is only the current term, and may not include gaps while they were not on the board.

You can also pivot to find out how many boards someone may be serving on. It appears that one owner serves on 6 different resort boards.


----------



## Superchief (Mar 24, 2011)

Dioxide,
Thanks for your great work. This information is very interesting. Bill Whelihan and Bill Whitaker are on several boards, and appear to both work for Marriott. Both are on the board at Oceana Palms, which had 20% increase in MF last year. We know whose interest they are representing. I hope that other TUG members will run for these boards and help vote these obviously biased people out.


----------



## dioxide45 (Mar 24, 2011)

Superchief said:


> Dioxide,
> Thanks for your great work. This information is very interesting. Bill Whelihan and Bill Whitaker are on several boards, and appear to both work for Marriott. Both are on the board at Oceana Palms, which had 20% increase in MF last year. We know whose interest they are representing. I hope that other TUG members will run for these boards and help vote these obviously biased people out.



True. They sit on the board at Oceana Palms as Developer board members but also on other boards as owners. So while seated on the other boards where they are not Marriott Representatives, there could be a conflict of interest. One of these Bill's is the one sitting on six boards.


----------



## Superchief (Mar 24, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> True. They sit on the board at Oceana Palms as Developer board members but also on other boards as owners. So while seated on the other boards where they are not Marriott Representatives, there could be a conflict of interest. One of these Bill's is the one sitting on six boards.



I am considering volunteering to run for the Oceana Palms board just to provide true owner representation. However, my name is also Bill and that could really confuse matters.


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Mar 25, 2011)

Great job Dioxide, thank you.

First thing I noticed was the number of possible descendants of MVCI President Steven Weisz on these boards in Developer board positions. Could they all possibly work for Marriott? I found what I thought were some inconsistencies in the data provided by Dioxide in regards to "Developer" representatives.

Second thing I noticed was the number of Developer and *Non-Developer* Board Members who serve on multiple Boards. See Dioxide's data file for specifics.

Third, are the Non-Developer Board Members who have seemingly served multiple, multi-year terms on the same boards. First, I tip my hat to the hard work and volunteer efforts of these long-serving Board Members. I know many of them have done an excellent job, and dedicated endless hours to being responsible Board Members. However, in my opinion, both the Board Members and Marriott should have disclosed the names of those Board Members who served multiple, multi-year terms and/or served on multiple MVCI Boards (to establish a potential "Marriott coziness factor") to help informed owners make decisions about who they elect to the Board (based on the longevity/term of seated/non-seated members of the Board). Personally, even if a Board was doing a good job, I would want to see some turnover in Board Members to broaden the involvement of the owner base and to bring fresh ideas to the Board. 

The names that I recognize from previous ballots of Board Members who may have served multiple, multi-year terms:

EDWARD REYNOLDS
THOMAS RACCA
DAN DIGLOVACCHINO
JOSEPH LAWRENCE
NORMA LEVY
JOHN MCSWEEN
RUTH SCHRIEFER
RAYMOND LANTZ, JR.

and, take note of the following:

DAN DIGLOVACCHINO (non-Developer) presently serves as the Cypress Harbor Board President and Treasurer of the Sabal Palms board and President of the Summit Watch board
JOHN MCSWEEN (non-Developer) serves on the Desert Springs Villas and Grande Vista boards (Vice President of the Grande Vista Board) (I seem to remember his name from other MVCI boards)
RUTH SCHRIEFER (non-Developer) serves as Vice President of the Manor Club Board and Vice President of the Sabal Palms Board
RAYMOND LANTZ, JR. (non-Developer) serves serves as Secretary of the Sabal Palms Board and Secretary of the Royal Palms Board
NORMA LEVY (non-Developer) serves as President oft the Shadow Ridge Board and as Vice President of the Desert Springs Villas Board  	

I'd be extremely interested to know how many years each of these Board Members and those Board Members who were not recognized by me as multiple term/multiple years Board Members have actually served as MVCI Board Members.

It's disappointing that Marriott has not disclosed the number and length of terms and cross-pollenation of these Board Members. I regret having casted votes recently without having this information (thanks again, Dioxide, for doing this work).

This brings me back to where this thread started............something just does not seem right to me with the number of (Non-Developer) Board Members who have served multiple terms of multiple years and of (Non-Develoer) Board Members who serve on multiple boards, when it has not been clearly disclosed. While it is true that these Board Members could have been or are doing a good job, (1) this information should have been disclosed by Marriott, and (2) if owners at any resort knew the longevity of each of their Board Members (seated and non-seated), they may have voted in a very different fashion.

Finally, I don't doubt that there are more individuals who fall into the groups above, these groupings included only the names that I recognized from proxies and ballots over many years.

What are the chances of Marriott willingly disclosing this data?


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Mar 25, 2011)

Superchief said:


> I am considering volunteering to run for the Oceana Palms board just to provide true owner representation. However, my name is also Bill and that could really confuse matters.



Sorry, I think Daryl, Daryl and Larry stand the best chance of being elected.*


*Circa ?


----------



## SueDonJ (Mar 25, 2011)

EducatedConsumer said:


> Great job Dioxide, thank you. ...



Yep, another good reference post, thanks.



EducatedConsumer said:


> ... I believe it is shameful that Marriott has not disclosed the longevity and cross-pollenation of these board members. This certainly invites many other questions, including the possibility that Marriott has been irresponsible in managing and disclosing this information to owners. I regret having casted votes recently without knowing this (thanks again, Dioxide, for doing this work).
> 
> This brings me back to where this thread started............something is very fishy with the number of (Non-Developer) Board Member "lifers" and the number of (Non-Develoer) Board Members who serve on multiple boards. While it is true that they could have been or are doing a good job, (1) this information should have been disclosed by Marriott, and (2) if owners at any resort knew the longevity of each of their Board Members (seated and non-seated), they may have voted in a very different fashion.
> 
> What are the chances of Marriott willingly disclosing this data? ...



You're much more optimistic than I am about what Marriott might disclose - I always figure that if they don't have to do something, if the legal docs don't require them to do something, then there's practically a zero possibility that they will.  There's something to be said for, "never give your adversary information to hang you."

Like you I think it's good to have this information about the folks who are running for the boards but I wouldn't necessarily discount someone simply because they're heavily involved with other boards.  With dioxide's post here, though, it will now be possible to cross-reference names and then use my-vacationclub.com to look up the financials for each resort and see if the repeats appear to be doing a good job.

Unlike you, though, I don't think Marriott's actions have been "shameful" or "irresponsible," and I really don't see anything "fishy" going on.  Again going back to the governing docs, but if it is allowed for a person including a Marriott insider to sit on more than one board and there is no requirement for Marriott to disclose that info, then they've done nothing wrong by voting their shares for their choices and not disclosing.  It's that cut and dried for me - even if it means that we owners have to work a little bit to get the information if we want it.


----------



## wof45 (Mar 25, 2011)

To me, this now appears to be form over function.

From your list, I see that many of these multiple board members are on the Sabal Palms board, and Sabal Palms is very well run, has not had the huge MF increases and is now renovated and very nice.

So why do you want to throw these people off the board?


----------



## Superchief (Mar 25, 2011)

wof45 said:


> From your list, I see that many of these multiple board members are on the Sabal Palms board, and Sabal Palms is very well run, has not had the huge MF increases and is now renovated and very nice.
> 
> So why do you want to throw these people off the board?



I agree that most boards have done a great job over the years in maintaining the quality of the resorts and keeping MF increases within reason. I don't have problems with those on multiple boards as long as they represent all of the owners' interests. In most cases, if owners are unhappy they can vote in new board directors (if suitable candidates are offered). However, I believe that this information should be disclosed in the 'bio' section when we vote, and there should be more transparency regarding how candidates are screened. I don't recall ever seeing this type of information in the bios for the six resorts I own. Bill Whitacker's bio made no mention that he is represesnting the developer and is on several other boards.

My bigger concern is that legacy owners will absorb more than their fair share of expenses in the future as the DC program expands. Who will pay for the increase in housekeeping, front desk staff, inventory management, maintenance, and replacement costs due to the shorter stays. Half of my resorts already exceed the $.40/ point MF that DC members are paying. The 20% + increase at Oceana Palms could be a sign of things to come.


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Mar 25, 2011)

wof45 said:


> To me, this now appears to be form over function.
> 
> From your list, I see that many of these multiple board members are on the Sabal Palms board, and Sabal Palms is very well run, has not had the huge MF increases and is now renovated and very nice.
> 
> So why do you want to throw these people off the board?



I agree with you and I think I am not communicating my message clearly.

My intent is not to throw anyone off a Board, but to clean up the election process so that owners can appreciate the level of engagement of all candidates for Board positions. To do that, I believe, would be fairly simple; I would suggest that each bio for each candidate contain some additional information, such as: (1) if presently on the Board, the number of years/terms that the member has served on the Board, (2) if the member is on another Marriott Board(s), I believe that should be disclosed, along with the members longevity on that/those boards, and (3) similar information for the "seated (not seeking election)" board members. This information will allow those voting to have a full appreciation for the make-up of the board (e.g. a board comprised largely of longstanding members, or a board with a mix of longstanding and less longstanding members, or for that matter, a board with one or two new members). I am not suggesting that a board be made up of one or the other, or any certain mix, but I do believe that this information should be disclosed as part of the election process. To clarify, I am not suggesting that all members who have served 10 or more years on a board be thrown off the board, but I am suggesting that those voting be empowered to make an informed decision about who they elect in the next generation of board members. Personally, I believe that in a community as large as a timeshare community (52 fractions of each home times the number of homes) that a Board should be fertile for some new people with new ideas, and I also believe that HOA boards that don't have regular cycling of board members can become stale. My disappointment with Marriott and for that matter with the boards, is with the  disclosure process. In an earlier post I included a link to the election process for the Mountain Equipment Coop (MEC) in Canada. Members of that Coop have a membership fee of about $20.00 invested in their membership, that's it. Marriott owners on the other hand have made a much greater financial investment, and the difference in the level of disclosures of candidates for election between the two organizations is dramatic. I use MEC only as an example, and because I think they have done a great job empowering their members with the information necessary to make an informed decision about who they elect to the Coop board.

I must admit to having one small degree of suspect. It seems that it is convenient for Marriott to do whatever it can to keep Board members on a board for as long as they see fit, particularly if that Board member is actively engaged and being supportive of Marriott's agenda. It makes Marriott's job all that much easier (and there certainly is some comfort that comes with who you (Marriott) already knows). The way for Marriott to do this is (1) to not actively reach out to owners who are knowingly interested and engaged in a resort (e.g. by leadership not calling the owners that they know have a genuine interest and encouraging them to come forward as a nominee); a simple printed "Call for Nominations" is not enough, (2) to not disclose the information that I made reference to above, and (3) to limit a candidates "statement of intent and qualifications" to 100 or so words. As said previously here by another contributor, the bios were so brief that they could not tell what the candidates might bring to the table (that's because their limited to 100 or so words). Again, I'd encourage anyone who is interested in this topic to look at the MEC Slate of Nominees and Bios (link posted in an earlier post by me).

Finally, if a mature resort has 200 villas and 52 intervals for each villa that makes for about 10,400 owners (not taking into account the reduction from multiple week owners or defaulted owners). To me, that creates a very large pool and opportunity to bring owners with unique and valuable skill sets to the Board, and to bring some occasional (? frequency) fresh renewal to the board.

I think the comments by others in this thread have been very appropriate and lively, and have made for a very respectable process for different ideas to be shared by people who undoubtedly come from a variety of walks of life. The great news is that everyone who has commented really seems to have their resorts best interests at heart, and no matter how critical anyone may be of Marriott, I think most respect the organization for the excellence that it brings to its resorts and owners, particularly its people. It's no surprise that I think very highly of the Marriott organization.


----------



## davidn247 (Mar 25, 2011)

Superchief said:


> My bigger concern is that legacy owners will absorb more than their fair share of expenses in the future as the DC program expands. Who will pay for the increase in housekeeping, front desk staff, inventory management, maintenance, and replacement costs due to the shorter stays. Half of my resorts already exceed the $.40/ point MF that DC members are paying. The 20% + increase at Oceana Palms could be a sign of things to come.



Thanks to dioxide for the great job here (as usual) and EducatedConsumer 
to keep the discussion live. I will take the time to go through this week-end and give him my support!

There are a lot of concern about the DC programs and the incremental costs that are supposed to be paid by the Trust. Also, I am still not buying why management fees should be 10% of budgeted costs and they do not go down with Actuals costs are below budget (see Grande Vista numbers if you have a doubt).

I am sure a lot of Board Members are doing a great job, but we have to start keeping Marriott honest here (during the significant changes that are happening). I heard too much salesmen talk, as if they own the resorts!

The first thing is to have transparency about the possible Board Members conflict of interest (are they paid by MVCI or another affiliate company?). Second (for me at least) is to put a cap on the numbers of consecutive mandates a Board Member can have in one resort (after 10/12 years: he/she has to go and come back later). Experience is good, but a certain rotation is better.


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Mar 25, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> Yep, another good reference post, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for your candor and perspective. I agree with much of what you have written and amended my comments accordingly.


----------



## SueDonJ (Mar 25, 2011)

EducatedConsumer said:


> Thank you for your candor and perspective. I agree with much of what you have written and amended my comments accordingly.



We're a mutual admiration society.     If ever the owners were to get their ducks in a row enough so that a vote is on the table to require the board candidates to disclose this kind of info in their bios, then I'd be right beside you voting "yay" for the amendment.  In the meantime every little bit of information that owners can wrap their brains around is good, and every time a discussion like this comes up on TUG it's good as well.  Knowledge is power.


----------



## dioxide45 (Mar 25, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> Knowledge is power.



I agree. I created the text file to provide the information. People can utilize it in any way they wish. At the least it provides more knowledge than we were provided before. The information was all available, just not in a format that made it easy to work with.


----------



## Luckybee (Mar 25, 2011)

Superchief said:


> I am considering volunteering to run for the Oceana Palms board just to provide true owner representation. However, my name is also Bill and that could really confuse matters.




Good luck with that....If you decide to do so make sure Marriott feels that you are in favour of everything they've done with the DC etc. Unfortunately anyone who wishes to run must go through Marriott's "vetting " process. In other words they have a sure fire manner in making certain that "loyalists" remain on the board even if there are current loyal member who get voted out. There are a number of very qualified candidates who have applied for more than one Marriott board whose names never make it on to the applicants list because Marriott doesnt want them to !


----------



## Superchief (Mar 25, 2011)

Luckybee said:


> Good luck with that....If you decide to do so make sure Marriott feels that you are in favour of everything they've done with the DC etc. Unfortunately anyone who wishes to run must go through Marriott's "vetting " process. In other words they have a sure fire manner in making certain that "loyalists" remain on the board even if there are current loyal member who get voted out. There are a number of very qualified candidates who have applied for more than one Marriott board whose names never make it on to the applicants list because Marriott doesnt want them to !



I have always been curious regarding how many people volunteer to be board members, and how they are screened. I would be interested in hearing TUG members' experiences regarding this.


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Mar 25, 2011)

I suspect that if Marriott casts its votes at a particular resort for all of the inventory that it owns, that those votes alone may be able to determine the outcome of an election.

I wonder who/what position at Marriott decides how the company is going to vote on its developer inventory? 

I also wonder if the owners at a particular resort will ever know how many votes Marriott casts (e.g. Destination Club inventory).


----------



## Luckybee (Mar 25, 2011)

It isnt just a matter of Marriott having the votes at election time, rather with some of the resorts (i dont know about all), the current board determines who they allow out of the volunteers to stand for election ie : if there are 25 volunteers they may only allow 5/10 etc. So for example if a board is "Marriott interest dominated" one could bet the farm that all candiates approved for the board will be of the same ilk unfortunately !


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Mar 26, 2011)

Luckybee said:


> It isnt just a matter of Marriott having the votes at election time, rather with some of the resorts (i dont know about all), the current board determines who they allow out of the volunteers to stand for election ie : if there are 25 volunteers they may only allow 5/10 etc. So for example if a board is "Marriott interest dominated" one could bet the farm that all candiates approved for the board will be of the same ilk unfortunately !



If my memory is right, the CC&R's at each of the resorts at which we have owned called for the Board to establish a Nominating Committee to prepare a slate of Nominees for the consideration of the owners. I seem to recall that that Nominating Committee is constituted by current and/or ? former Board members.  To your point, it could be difficult to get past the Nominating Committee if there are no objective measures known to the candidates (e.g. Board Member Job Description) and used by the Nominating Committee, or the process is entirely subjective.

I would really like to think that the present Board Member's have the resort's best interests at heart, at the resorts at which they serve. I struggle, though, to understand how anyone can justify serving as a Board Member for 10 or 15 years (particularly with the Board's being so small), with a pool of new/fresh/qualified candidates in the range of 20,000 to 40,000 or more owners at a resort. And I wonder how Marriott can condone the image that this creates; it does not look inclusive or democratic to me, and between the lack of turnover and the participation of some Board Members on multiple MVCI Boards, it really creates a "Good Ol' Boys Club" image.

On the other hand, many of the Board Members that I know are quite qualified to serve in the roles that they do, have done a good job, and have given up countless hours of their life to carry out their role.


----------



## Lardan (Mar 26, 2011)

For several years I attempted to be on the board at Cypress Harbour.  I  would fill out all the information and really work hard on my bio to have a chance to serve.  None of my attempts allowed me to proceed to the election to be voted on by the members.  After a few years I just quit, it definintely appeared as a waste of my time understanding what the word "no" meant.  I always thought it must be owners of numerous weeks for many years making them well known to others. Whatever the reason I thought the "good 'ol boy system" was alive and well.

I do know that reading the bios of candidates certainly doesn't give alot of information.  I am also astonished that no member of this forum serves on any of the boards.  Maybe they do, but don't want to disclose their idenity on an internet public forum such as this.

For years after my experience I have always wondered just who are these people?


----------



## Superchief (Mar 26, 2011)

Lardan said:


> For years after my experience I have always wondered just who are these people?



This year, we had three choices (vote for 2) for the BOD at Oceana Palms. One was the previously mentioned Bill Whitaker, and the other two were recent MVC purchasers with no relevant experience for this type of position. I am hoping that the lack of choices was due to the newness of the resort, but I am beginning to wonder whether Marriott stacks the deck in their favor with the prescreens.

I am disappointed to learn about your disappointing experiences. Did you ever receive an explanation for your rejection?


----------



## Lardan (Mar 26, 2011)

This was so long ago I can't remember any explanation given to me. If I did, it must have been very vague or just to inform me I didn't make the cut.  If there had been any decent explanation I would have remembered it.


----------



## dioxide45 (Mar 26, 2011)

Lardan said:


> I am also astonished that no member of this forum serves on any of the boards.  Maybe they do, but don't want to disclose their idenity on an internet public forum such as this.



There is at least one. Eric (Minoter), is president of the Beach Place Towers board.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 27, 2011)

*Why stack control if it isn't needed? Just do the job!*



Lardan said:


> For several years I attempted to be on the board at Cypress Harbour.  I  would fill out all the information and really work hard on my bio to have a chance to serve.  None of my attempts allowed me to proceed to the election to be voted on by the members.  After a few years I just quit, it definintely appeared as a waste of my time understanding what the word "no" meant.  I always thought it must be owners of numerous weeks for many years making them well known to others. Whatever the reason I thought the "good 'ol boy system" was alive and well.
> 
> I do know that reading the bios of candidates certainly doesn't give alot of information.  I am also astonished that no member of this forum serves on any of the boards.  Maybe they do, but don't want to disclose their idenity on an internet public forum such as this.
> 
> For years after my experience I have always wondered just who are these people?



No matter how they try to paint it this isn't right. Those that feel qualified to run should be allowed to do so - period.  As Marriott is certainly already aware it is very hard to unseat any incumbent Board member - have a ton f candidates further dilutes the votes and makes it less likely an upstart will prevail. Plus they hold so many proxies they can basically out vote the independent owners if needed. 

It is all just too convenient for Marriott (or any other developer doing the same tricks) to hold on to control long after it was supposed to rightfully pass to the owners.  Do the job & you will be kept on with no need to stack the deck. Obviously Marriott doesn't think their performance as management meets the levels required or they wouldn't feel the need to maintain it by questionable actions.  In fact I know of at least two Associations were the management has been given a 90 day /out contract meaning if the  Board votes to remove them they could be out in 90 days. THAT'S pressure to deliver as promised. In addition the Developer has agreed at those same resorts to vote their shares for the Board candidates WITH the majority of independent owners.  They did not have to agree to that but they did. Why? Because they saw that the Board/Owners have taken the reins and guided the resorts to the best they can be for the money, have created relationships / contracts that truly give value to the owners/resort and are willing to stake even their holdings on that level of caring. It is a vote of confidence on all sides and means they can work together for the best of the Association/Resort which should always be goal #1. 

The actions of Marriott show a distrust ofthe owners as well as their own performance/value.  Not the feeling I want my management to have regarding their own way of doing business.  Stacking the Board is one telling way to judge a developer/managements self worth.


----------



## minoter (Mar 27, 2011)

The nomination process for Board service is not complicated. For sold out properties, the nominating committee generally has 3 members, none of which are Marriott employees. The members consist of one or two Board members and one or two non-board owners. 
The process is as follows: Owners are invited to submit a Board self-nomination form which is sent to the resort. All forms are then submitted to the nominating committee for review. Local management can suggest owners for the ballot. However, the nominating committee (independent from Marriott) makes the final decision of those owners for the ballot. Primary considerations include: experience serving on volunteer boards, expertise (finance, legal, property management, organizational skills, time available to serve). An important criterion includes annual stays at the resort (but this is not a requirement).

Generally there are twice the number of owners for the ballot, plus 1, for positions up for election (ie 2 positions, 5 owners for the ballot). Incumbents are generally included in the count, but it is not required. Many incumbents elect no to run. Board service is very time consuming and involves time commitments outside of Board meetings at the resort. Board service is not a boondoggle for those who truly serve for the owners.

The major challenge in electing new Board members is to get owners to vote. It is sad that only 20% or less owners (not including Marriott) vote their ballot. At resorts that have a 100% owner Board, Marriott would have little or no impact on the Board representation if a majority of owners voted their proxy. This could also eliminate repeat Board service since more voting owners could influence incumbent reelection. Owner voter apathy has more influence on the outcome of an election than Marriott's DC weeks. However, if owners continue to not vote and Marriott continues to accumulate and own more weeks in the DC (generally through foreclosure purchase), Marriott will begin to accumulate the votes that could sway Board elections.

I cannot vouch for the nominating process for every MVCI resort. The information above is my experience at BeachPlace and Ocean Point and understanding at several other properties. The Board and owners serving on the nominating committee also needs to be committed to their fiduciary responsibility to owners and remain independent from Marriott. It is truly up to the owners, Board members and voting owners.

Eric Minotti
BeachPlace Board President


----------



## davidn247 (Mar 28, 2011)

minoter said:


> The nomination process for Board service is not complicated. For sold out properties, the nominating committee generally has 3 members, none of which are Marriott employees. The members consist of one or two Board members and one or two non-board owners.
> The process is as follows: Owners are invited to submit a Board self-nomination form which is sent to the resort. All forms are then submitted to the nominating committee for review. Local management can suggest owners for the ballot. However, the nominating committee (independent from Marriott) makes the final decision of those owners for the ballot. Primary considerations include: experience serving on volunteer boards, expertise (finance, legal, property management, organizational skills, time available to serve). An important criterion includes annual stays at the resort (but this is not a requirement).
> 
> Generally there are twice the number of owners for the ballot, plus 1, for positions up for election (ie 2 positions, 5 owners for the ballot). Incumbents are generally included in the count, but it is not required. Many incumbents elect no to run. Board service is very time consuming and involves time commitments outside of Board meetings at the resort. Board service is not a boondoggle for those who truly serve for the owners.
> ...




Thanks Eric for your clear and transparent explanations. It seems that things are under pretty good control according to your post. I hope that this is the case for all resorts.

Note that I would like to see much more transparent and formal "governance rules" from Marriott, on how they manage the resorts (incl. BoD). From what you mentionned, I would expect MVCI to provide all processes in writting somewhere on their website (or on each resort page, like for BoD minutes or MF budgets).

I am actually trying to contact MGV board for one specific question (and will add this one re:"governance rules").


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Apr 1, 2011)

Based on the recent claims put forward by Mr. Cohen on behalf of Marriott ruba Ocean Club owners, I encourage owners to demand an overhaul of the Board's nomination and election process.


----------



## TJCNewYork (Apr 2, 2011)

EducatedConsumer said:


> I encourage owners to demand an overhaul of the Board's nomination and election process.



Resort bylaws require scrutiny, here.  To fulfill their fiduciary role and responsibility, it is my understanding that bylaws prescribe requirements for annual meetings, regular board meetings, budget meetings and special meetings including but not limited to notice requirements, place/location, voting methods and distribution of minutes. In some resorts, where meetings can take place may be limited to a defined radius from the resort if not at the resort.   Some bylaws also detail what expenses BoD members can claim, who has the authority to approve same and how exceptions are to be handled.  In some locations, bylaws are written to comply with statute.  Florida is a good example. AOC is clearly out of FL jurisdiction, so local statutes prevail. 

If the BoD meeting(s) and BoD expenses were handled w/in the letter and intent of resort bylaws, rethinking what requires an 'overhaul' may have merit.  BoD expenses are a line item on the Annual Budget.  While there may not be a bylaw requirement, it is a best practice that any positive or negative variance(s) are explained.


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Apr 2, 2011)

TJCNewYork said:


> Resort bylaws require scrutiny, here.  To fulfill their fiduciary role and responsibility, it is my understanding that bylaws prescribe requirements for annual meetings, regular board meetings, budget meetings and special meetings including but not limited to notice requirements, place/location, voting methods and distribution of minutes. In some resorts, where meetings can take place may be limited to a defined radius from the resort if not at the resort.   Some bylaws also detail what expenses BoD members can claim, who has the authority to approve same and how exceptions are to be handled.  In some locations, bylaws are written to comply with statute.  Florida is a good example. AOC is clearly out of FL jurisdiction, so local statutes prevail.
> 
> If the BoD meeting(s) and BoD expenses were handled w/in the letter and intent of resort bylaws, rethinking what requires an 'overhaul' may have merit.  BoD expenses are a line item on the Annual Budget.  While there may not be a bylaw requirement, it is a best practice that any positive or negative variance(s) are explained.



Well said.


----------



## minoter (Apr 3, 2011)

Owners are able to monitor Board expenses by reference to the annual budget. As a benchmark, BeachPlace Towers Board expenses are $1.13/week or $12,000 a year. Those expenses include Board travel for 5 Board members twice a year for a 3 day stay at the property for 2 full days of meetings, including finance committee meetings and executive sessions with our local attorney. The expenses are limited to coach round trip air fare (the major expense item), 3 nights in a master at Marriott's Board rate (less than $100/night), transportation too and from the airport (sometimes it is less expensive for a 3 day car rental rather than the round trip taxi fare), breakfast and lunch brought in for working meetings, and dinner with receipts not to exceed $25/night for 3 nights. There are conference call committee meetings (finance and nominating) that occur through out the year that typically last 1-2 hours. The telephone costs for these conference calls are also included in Board expenses. I consider the level of expenses described above reasonable and necessary and would encourage owners to become familiar with Board activities. 

Our meetings (which are posted at the front desk) are noticed in the mailings to owners and begin at 9AM and end at 3 or 4PM depending on the agenda. There have been budget meetings that have lasted well past 6PM. Our conference call meetings are also posted at the front desk and owners are invited to attend the conference calls in the conference office on property.

By-laws were written by Marriott to conform with State law and seem to be designed for efficient operation of the Association. Owners that believe that certain by-law provisions not mandated by state law should be changed should contact their Board and discuss the recommended changes. 

Eric Minotti


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 3, 2011)

minoter said:


> ... By-laws were written by Marriott to conform with State law and seem to be designed for efficient operation of the Association. Owners that believe that certain by-law provisions not mandated by state law should be changed should contact their Board and discuss the recommended changes.
> 
> Eric Minotti



Thanks for the info, Eric; you've provided a good starting point for all of us to help keep our Boards honest.  For various reasons these Aruba Ocean Club owners have not had an easy time getting information from Marriott, the resort GM or their Board members.  I highly doubt at this point that the MAOC Board would be receptive to the type of discussion you're suggesting.  So for them, and others who might find themselves in the same situation, can you advise where exactly they can look to find the info they need to proceed - things like the Board expenditure $ limits and allowances you've outlined for BP, which particular governing docs might contain the relevant language, which particular line items in the resort budget can be reviewed, etc ...  If nothing else, maybe with your help they'll at least be able to minimize the legal costs that they're probably going to have to incur to proceed here.


----------



## pwrshift (Apr 3, 2011)

minoter said:


> ...For sold out properties, the nominating committee generally has 3 members, none of which are Marriott employees. The members consist of one or two Board members and one or two non-board owners.



Curious how many applicants are usually considered before they decide on the 5 contenders?  

What assurance do owners have that the 'nominating committee' is objective in their selection, and do existing board members always have a kick at the can, thus inhibiting the process?  

I assume board members up for election are not on the nominating committee?

Brian


----------



## minoter (Apr 3, 2011)

Susan,
My suggestion is for owners to attend their Board meetings and vote their proxy. This may sound simplistic, but it will give owners the face time with the Board to discuss their (owners) relevant matters. If Board members are not approachable or accessible, owners should use the power of their vote and replace them.
Regarding Board expenses, airfare is the most expensive item (especially out of country, ie Aruba) on the expense report. I suggest any interested owners price out what a reasonable proforma expense report might look like given the information I gave above. Then the owner can analyze how the cumulative total for all Board members expenses for ALL meetings compare with the line item on the Association's annual budget. 

Brian,
The number of applicants for Board service varies, but all applicant forms are considered by the committee. No incumbent Board members serve on the nominating committee. You have to have faith in the committee that they are performing their duties objectively. My experience is that the committee works diligently to select candidates with the expertise needed on the Board. Incumbents are generally included on the ballot. As I mentioned earlier, the major negative impact on electing Board members is owner voter apathy. If an incumbent is not doing a good job, owners voting their proxy can negate Marriott's voting power (in sold out properties) and new Board members can be voted in. But it takes more than 15 or 20% of votes to effect change, and unfortunately, the numbers of owners voting is dismal. If an Association has an ineffective Board, they have no one to blame but themselves.
Eric


----------



## ciscogizmo1 (Apr 3, 2011)

minoter said:


> But it takes more than 15 or 20% of votes to effect change, and unfortunately, the numbers of owners voting is dismal. If an Association has an ineffective Board, they have no one to blame but themselves.
> Eric


  I totally agree with this statement.  I serve on 4 boards.  Granted they aren't as powerful as serving on a Marriott board as they are the soccer board, swim board, 2 PTA boards.   However, the one thing I noticed is that the same people serve.  Hence, why I'm on 4 boards.  The nominating committee is always looking for new members but nobody wants to serve in our situation.  Nobody wants to make the comittment either.  Anyways, the 2nd thing is nobody comes to any meetings.  Nobody ever votes.  But people sure have a lot to say about how the club or PTA is run.  It is so sad because if they came to meeting they just might have a clue.  Things aren't as easy or simple as everyone thinks it is.


----------



## davidn247 (Apr 12, 2011)

I just received the following email..... Grande Vista looking for Board Members!


Dear Marriott’s Grande Vista Owner: 
At the fall 2011 Annual Meeting Owners will elect members to serve on the Board of Directors.  Any Member desiring to become a candidate for election to the Board of Directors must complete and submit a Volunteer Form to the Association.  Volunteer Forms must be received by June 1, 2011, to be considered for the 2011 Board of Directors election.

At the November 19, 2010 Annual Meeting, Owners voted to approve an amendment to the Association documents to allow the use of a non judicial foreclosure process.  The non judicial foreclosure process will allow the Association to foreclose more quickly on delinquent accounts as well as save the Association money spent in legal fees.  I encourage you to review the amendment.  

Please contact me with any questions you may have at 407-238-6388 or by email at paul.ryan@vacationclub.com.

Best regards,

Paul Ryan
General Manager
Marriott’s Grande Vista


----------



## EducatedConsumer (Mar 6, 2012)

It's that time of the year again. What are the chances that Marriott does its job this year and discloses the number of Marriott HOA boards that this year's candidates serve on, and the number of years that they've served on those HOA boards?




EducatedConsumer said:


> Great job Dioxide, thank you.
> 
> First thing I noticed was the number of possible descendants of MVCI President Steven Weisz on these boards in Developer board positions. Could they all possibly work for Marriott? I found what I thought were some inconsistencies in the data provided by Dioxide in regards to "Developer" representatives.
> 
> ...


----------



## dioxide45 (Mar 7, 2012)

EducatedConsumer said:


> It's that time of the year again. What are the chances that Marriott does its job this year and discloses the number of Marriott HOA boards that this year's candidates serve on, and the number of years that they've served on those HOA boards?



Chances are 0%. The best we can do is put together the list like I did earlier in this thread.


----------



## Clark (Sep 26, 2012)

*HOA Members*



rcgrogan said:


> I have made it a point to attend every HOA meeting at the Custom House.



I removed this, meant it to be a PM


----------



## sparty (Oct 9, 2012)

*Cypress Harbour Owners - please read*



EducatedConsumer said:


> It's that time of the year again. What are the chances that Marriott does its job this year and discloses the number of Marriott HOA boards that this year's candidates serve on, and the number of years that they've served on those HOA boards?



Ok - here's your chance to change the board.

Last Friday (Oct 5th) or soon after Cypress Harbour owners should have got an email or mail with notice of the 2012 Annual meeting.

The meeting is to consider the following:

1) Elect two members to the Board of Directors
2) The waiving of fully funded reserves

Voting has never been easier, you can do so via Morrow & Co., LLC’s on-line proxy voting system, http://proxyvoting.com/MVCI and entering the control number they provide you.  You may cast your vote(s) on-line no later than 11:59 p.m., Eastern time, on October 19, 2012

Some choices for board members are:
1) William Douglas - served for 12 years on the Cypress Harbour board
2) Deb Gammon - served for 18 years on the Cypress Harbour board

or 

3) Myself, felllow tugger - Robert Heape - eager to serve as a new board member.

Time for a change?

I reach out to my fellow tuggers to vote for me and ask you contact other Cypress Harbour owners you may know to vote.  My promise is to be open and to always represent the best interest of MVC owners, especially my fellow Tug owners who are passionate about their timeshare.  I too share the passion.  My qualifications are listed on the Proxy but I'm a 11 year MVC owner, multiple weeks owned, DC member, 20+ years of senior managemet in Fortune 100 Tech companies.

I also recommend voting NO to waiving fully funded reserves. I am a fiscal conservative who would like avoid any surprise special assessments in the future due to under funding.

Please let me know if you have any questions, PM or post here, and vote for me.


----------



## timeos2 (Oct 9, 2012)

Sparty -  I know it's an uphill climb to even get on the ballot at a Marriott controlled resort. Hopefully the owners there will want to get a real voice on the Board that represents THEM not Marriott TS interests and that they will heed your call to defeat the vote to unwisely waive the reserve requirements.

Good luck to you!


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 9, 2012)

Good luck, Sparty.  

From what I understand re waiving fully-funded reserves there are several states which require an association to have in reserves at all times a reasonable amount of funds to fully refurbish a resort - soft goods, hard goods, exterior maintenance such as roofs, windows, pool decks, etc.  Marriott's usual practice is to routinely schedule refurbs - soft goods every +/- five years, hard goods +/- ten years, exterior according to the schedule recommended by the auditors who review the various vendor contracts for warranties and such.

With a set refurb schedule in place the HOA is able, in states where a fully-funded reserve is not mandated, to budget reserve fees over a set period of time such that Owners are annually billed 1/5th of the soft goods refurb estimate, 1/10th the hard goods refurb, and the appropriate pro-rated exterior maintenance estimates.  In states where it is mandated the passage of a waiver allows for the same budgeting.  But if the waiver measure does not pass, the HOA board will have no choice but to immediately bill each Owner whatever amount is necessary to completely fund the reserve account such that the costs for every anticipated refurb item could be covered immediately.  Effectively, the amount could be billed to the Owners in the next billing cycle and then a majority of it will sit in a bank account somewhere for the majority of the next ten years.

As far as special assessments for unanticipated refurbs and repairs, a fully-funded reserve measure does not negate that possibility.  HOA's are not required to keep a reserve fund for catastrophic disasters such as hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.  The governing docs mandate catastrophic insurance coverage but typically there are large deductibles with it (else the premiums would be unmanageable,) but the docs also grant that a Special Assessment can be levied in extreme circumstances.

With my own home I budget for reasonably anticipated routine maintenance items over a period of years and recognize that a catastrophic event might blow my budget all to heck and back again.  What I don't do is keep a bank account fully-funded at the ready to cover each and every possible repair/refurb/replacement item that will reasonably come due in the next ten years.

If the HOA boards of my resorts have a good handle on a reasonable anticipated refurb schedule and they set a budget which annually funds pro-rated reserves for that schedule, I'll continue to vote YES for waiving the fully-funded reserves.


----------



## timeos2 (Oct 9, 2012)

Susan - You are misinterpreting "fully funded" to mean all the money in the bank due now. The law understands that it will be needed over time & allows for scheduled payment from owners. Waiving it means there is a real risk management would be tempted to underfund the reserves to hold fees lower. An all too common developer controlled Association move.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 9, 2012)

timeos2 said:


> Susan - You are misinterpreting "fully funded" to mean all the money in the bank due now. The law understands that it will be needed over time & allows for scheduled payment from owners. Waiving it means there is a real risk management would be tempted to underfund the reserves to hold fees lower. An all too common developer controlled Association move.



Hmmmm.  At least at my two South Carolina resorts there are existing regulations that require establishment of reserve funds for routine maintenance/refurb items, which are in addition to the specific terms of the fully-funded reserve statute that stipulate which common features of the property must be included.  But still the catastrophic events which may result in a Special Assessment are exempted from all reserve funding requirements.

SC regulations also contain a restriction as to when a developer can vote to waive the fully-funded requirement, which is only during the first two years of development.  Beyond that period a waiver of fully-funded reserves can only be voted in by the HOA - and not the development company or resort board.

IMO based on the relatively low incidence rate of Special Assessments across the Marriott resort network, Marriott's management style and influence on the resort boards has been financially sound.  If anything I'd say that the limited history has influenced Marriott to recommend that the HOA's err on the side of a healthier reserve fund than what might be acceptable.  Specific to my two resorts, based on the resorts' GM communications and annual budget reports I'd say they appear to have healthy, adequate reserve funds despite the waivers we've voted in.

So again I go back to, as long as the boards and/or financial committees consider the property audit information when setting reasonable reserve funding for anticipated maintenance/repairs/refurbs, then I will continue to vote YES for the waiver of those state-imposed stricter fully-funded requirements.  Specific to Sparty's comments in this thread, I just don't see how fully-funded reserves, as they're legislated, can completely negate the possibility of a Special Assessment.

Now if there are no other state-mandated reserve requirements in Florida and any other states where fully-funded reserves are legislated, I'd vote NO to a waiver.  But I'd still recognize that it wouldn't negate the possibility of a Special Assessment for unanticipated catastrophic events.


----------



## timeos2 (Oct 9, 2012)

No amount of planning or reserves can ever guarantee no special assessments. But a healthy reserve makes it far less likely.

Rather than temp the management with the right to waive fully funded reserves I prefer that the law be followed as written.  YMMV.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 9, 2012)

timeos2 said:


> No amount of planning or reserves can ever guarantee no special assessments. But a healthy reserve makes it far less likely.
> 
> Rather than temp the management with the right to waive fully funded reserves I prefer that the law be followed as written.  YMMV.



Sure, that's understandable.  But there's a fine line between billing Owners to cover an adequate reserve fund and billing them an amount that might result in too many funds sitting unused for a period of time.  Despite the facts that an independent auditor suggests the reserve items and that the board ultimately sets the budget, Marriott is the entity which will suffer the poor reputation if folks think that their MF's are too high because of reserves.  Marriott already takes quite a bit of heat - a lot of it from you  - because their management fee is 10% of the MF including reserves.

It appears that fully-funded reserve legislation was first enacted in response to complaints that resorts hadn't collected reserve funds at all.  That's never been an issue with the developer-controlled systems but like I said, where woefully inadequate reserves are the norm then waiving the state-mandated fully-funded measure doesn't make sense.


----------



## timeos2 (Oct 9, 2012)

Wouldn't that 10%+ paid on reserves & taxes go a long way if not dedicated to management costs? No need for increases for a year, two or more without that guaranteed profit that benefits no one except management. Virtually unheard of outside of developer controlled Association & contracts. What owner Board would vote for that (Or no bid contracts also prevalent)?


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 9, 2012)

timeos2 said:


> Wouldn't that 10%+ paid on reserves & taxes go a long way if not dedicated to management costs? No need for increases for a year, two or more without that guaranteed profit that benefits no one except management. Virtually unheard of outside of developer controlled Association & contracts. What owner Board would vote for that (Or no bid contracts also prevalent)?



Well, this is a longtime difference of opinion between the two of us that we'll just have to continue to agree to disagree.  

If you want to own a Marriott timeshare then you pretty much have to agree to accept the 10% management fee that Marriott takes because it's a contractual obligation that would require a near-impossible majority vote to get rid of.  If by some miracle it did get voted out at a single Marriott resort, you can bet the house on either of two things happening: one, Marriott would probably negate the existing Management contract with the resort at the earliest possible moment resulting in the Owners losing all the benefits of owning within the Marriott network, or two, all the other resorts would line up for their shot at getting their contracted 10% management fee reduced.  I'd venture to guess that the majority of Marriott Owners do not want the Marriott name separated from their resort so the first option wouldn't happen.  The second option wouldn't happen either because Marriott is just not going to let those floodgates be opened.

Unless the Owners want to volunteer their services and institute rotating chore charts at their resorts, somebody is going to be paid to take care of reservations, housekeeping, maintenance, activities, etc etc etc.  Although the 10% total taken in by Marriott across all resorts is a gigantic amount of money, IMO my share of that 10% total is a reasonable amount considering the condition of the resorts, the vacation experience I get when I'm at the resort, and the Marriott-network benefits that come with the ownership.  Marriott would have to do something horribly destructive and illegal for me to sign on to a challenge of their management fee.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 9, 2012)

timeos2 said:


> Sparty -  I know it's an uphill climb to even get on the ballot at a Marriott controlled resort. Hopefully the owners there will want to get a real voice on the Board that represents THEM not Marriott TS interests and that they will heed your call to defeat the vote to unwisely waive the reserve requirements.
> 
> Good luck to you!



I am not sure how waiving fully funded reserves at a sold out resort helps the developer. It might help the MFs for DC points to stay low, but one resort would have a negligible impact

If I recall correctly, the Cypress Harbour owners last year, or the year before were able to successfully vote No to waive the fully funding of reserves.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 9, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> Well, this is a longtime difference of opinion between the two of us that we'll just have to continue to agree to disagree.
> 
> If you want to own a Marriott timeshare then you pretty much have to agree to accept the 10% management fee that Marriott takes because it's a contractual obligation that would require a near-impossible majority vote to get rid of.  If by some miracle it did get voted out at a single Marriott resort, you can bet the house on either of two things happening: one, Marriott would probably negate the existing Management contract with the resort at the earliest possible moment resulting in the Owners losing all the benefits of owning within the Marriott network, or two, all the other resorts would line up for their shot at getting their contracted 10% management fee reduced.  I'd venture to guess that the majority of Marriott Owners do not want the Marriott name separated from their resort so the first option wouldn't happen.  The second option wouldn't happen either because Marriott is just not going to let those floodgates be opened.
> 
> Unless the Owners want to volunteer their services and institute rotating chore charts at their resorts, somebody is going to be paid to take care of reservations, housekeeping, maintenance, activities, etc etc etc.  Although the 10% total taken in by Marriott across all resorts is a gigantic amount of money, IMO my share of that 10% total is a reasonable amount considering the condition of the resorts, the vacation experience I get when I'm at the resort, and the Marriott-network benefits that come with the ownership.  Marriott would have to do something horribly destructive and illegal for me to sign on to a challenge of their management fee.



I would agree, and no amount of back and forth will change John's mind one way or ours the other. It is like walking in to an Apple convention and trying to sell the virtues of Microsoft. Ironically, something else that John likes to drone on.

The 10% fee is a fee we pay for the name and product. While it may be a steep price to pay for some, it isn't for others. I for one am happy to pay it for the product that they offer.


----------

