# Today's Pelican St Maarten meeting on this web site live



## tombo (Jul 11, 2011)

Today's Pelican meeting is supposed to be on this web site live today. Any owners might want to check it out.

http://www.simpsonbayresort.com/


----------



## tombo (Jul 11, 2011)

If you click on the video play button you can see today's meeting/


----------



## Greg G (Jul 13, 2011)

Well there is a newly elected Tenants Association Pelican Resort and Casino(TAPRC) and the voting was completely thrown by FIP voting its massive block of votes (some 3189 votes).  The number of write in proxies by individual owners to keep the old TAPRC (some 1600) were not enough to overcome this FIP voting block.  Only time will tell how things will pan out and if this new board will stick up for the individual owners.

Here is a snippet from the e-mail sent out by the TAPRC board that was just replaced by the new vote (who IMHO was really fighting for the individual owners)

"Thank you so much to the great numbers of you who voted to support your apparently now "former” TAPRC Board. For those of you who were able to watch yesterday’s Special General Meeting live, you are now aware that we have, sadly, come full circle. As Board members we have spent thousands of hours toward educating our owner base on the history and track record of Royal et al. as well as the implications to the owner base. We did this gladly and passionately as we truly thought it would make a difference. And, indeed, many owners now understand the history and situation better. But, alas, after all of this we are back to the way things were for several years before 2009. FIP once again cast “their” block of votes to completely control the voting yesterday. The real owners’ votes did not matter when it counted most. This is the same state of affairs as we experienced with many other voting situations in the past. Although the numbers are still to be validated, this is the way we understand the votes cast.

Proposal #1 – To remove the current TAPRC Board

Vote ----- Owner Votes (Proxy and Ballot) ----- FIP Votes ------ Total
FOR   ------822--------------------------------3189 -----------4011
AGAINST --1601--------------------------------0---------------1601
ABSTAIN ---8-----------------------------------0----------------8
. . . . . . . 
What do these results tell us? First, on Proposal #1, the true owner vote was 2 to 1 AGAINST removing the Board. Yet, because FIP voted their block and did not allow the Board to vote the number of weeks in the Unsold Inventory (which is their right) they, once again, controlled the outcome to their desired result.

Second - on the candidates – without the FIP block, there was very little owner voting for new candidates. One point on this issue… FIP insisted in yesterday’s meeting that these were not their handpicked candidates. Yet, one must ask themselves why would any owner suddenly decide to place their name on a ballot in July when no ballot should have even existed until December 2010 at the Annual General Meeting? What or who would have prompted them to do so? Further, to be placed on a ballot the Articles state that an owner must acquire 75 endorsement signatures. Were any other owners given the opportunity to garner the requisite 75 to have their names place on the ballot as well? Apparently not.

On a final note, within the first two hours after the “new Board” was “elected”, Mr. Sutton advised all members that he’s been authorized to approach the newly “elected” Board about becoming the first ever Simpson Bay “Advisory Board”. As he explained his Mexico resorts are run, this means that there is no owner voting, no direct owner input on any decisions. Just his 5 member Advisory Board. So, he is already attempting to manipulate this newly “elected” Board.

Déjà vu? Sure seems like it and then some. If you are content with this situation then so be it. But if you are not content with this situation, don’t be apathetic. Email the newly “elected” Board and let them know that you are dissatisfied with the way today’s meeting was run and with the results. Let them know that you will not sit quietly by while Mr. Sutton continues playing his games. Their email addresses are listed below. Please copy us on your emails by sending them to pelicanboard@gmail.com as well as PROG by clicking HERE to contact us. We will publish them. 

William Soule               wksoule@rogers.com 
Barry Glassman            bglassma@verizon.net 
Lynne Cunningham       plcunn@charter.net 
Arthur D’Italia             arthurd2@verizon.net 
Debra Patrick              dpatrick2005@comcast.net


Greg


----------



## deemac (Jul 14, 2011)

*Are Royals (Friendly Island Prop) now paying mf for 3189 units*

Just curious -- 


In the past they were not, and that is why they were prevented from voting that block (which finally resulted in the real TARPAC election, a couple years ago).

You are/were required to be a paid-up (maintenance fees, etc) unit "owner" in order to cast votes.  FIP/Royals had ownership of thousands of units (some even foreclosed/voluntarily-returned to resort).   And it was determined FIP/Royals, or no one else, was paying fees for most of those units,--  being used by FIP/Royals to cast the winning votes.     

I watched some of the proceedings, and saw it was about to become the usual farse, and decided to just give up.

I wonder how they plan to keep mf's at a manageable level.  Time will tell.


----------



## Greg G (Jul 14, 2011)

Yes, I'm not sure how they are allowed to vote their block as per the e-mail from TAPRC  "In 2009 FIP signed a Memo of Understanding allowing the prior TAPRC Board to vote those weeks in exchange for the waiving of $2MM+ in past due AMFs."

The following is a portion of the e-mail  sent by the former TAPRC board right before the July 11  Simpson Bay/FIP meeting where they were voted out

"The reality on the ground:

1.FIP is running and controlling their meeting on Monday at the Resort. Please remember that they never paid the Annual Maintenance Fees for the weeks that they intend to vote – amounting to several million dollars. Yet, Royal Resorts (Sutton) collected 10% of those unpaid AMFs as part of their Management Fees. In 2009 FIP signed a Memo of Understanding allowing the prior TAPRC Board to vote those weeks in exchange for the waiving of $2MM+ in past due AMFs.
2.The prior and current TAPRC Boards have made repeated requests over the past 18 months to sit down and meet with Mr. Sutton et al. and he has rejected all requests.
3.Supporting the current TAPRC Board will insure independent financial oversight of the Resort and its Management company.
4.Mr. Sutton and his crew are banking on owner frustration and apathy and are trying to replace the Board with their hand picked candidates.  (Sound like the Vlietman days??)
"


----------



## KathyA (Jul 19, 2011)

deemac said:


> Just curious --
> 
> 
> In the past they were not, and that is why they were prevented from voting that block (which finally resulted in the real TARPAC election, a couple years ago).
> ...



They did not require up-to-date maintenance fees to be paid.  If you haven't officially been suspended (which no one has in the last year) you were allowed to vote.  That is how FIP was allowed to vote those votes.  The displaced TAPRC wasn't in a position to argue as two of their own five members (according to the chair of the meeting) are not up to date.


----------



## krmlaw (Jul 22, 2011)

i havent been follwoing things closely ... but have reservations in the marina residences for next year (july 2012). do you think we will be able to go or should we cancel?


----------



## KathyA (Jul 22, 2011)

I would definitely not cancel yet.  A lot can happen in a year--especially at Pelican.


----------



## deemac (Jul 24, 2011)

krmlaw said:


> i havent been follwoing things closely ... but have reservations in the marina residences for next year (july 2012). do you think we will be able to go or should we cancel?



I like LaVista better.    Think you can get that resort?


----------

