# MROP Board/merged



## chemteach (Mar 31, 2008)

I just received my mailing for the MROP board vote.  What are people's thoughts?  There is someone who posts here who is running, but I'm not certain who it is.  I'm not happy with all the changes so quickly, the special assessment, etc.  Is it time for some new people??

Thoughts?


----------



## brg850 (Mar 31, 2008)

Given the fact the four existing board members are running for the four open positions and the way they are conducting the proxy voting without real ballots again, you can tell the same people will still be running the MROP board. If you read their statements, it makes you to think again why these lawyers are not following the rules and the reasons they need the 3-bedroom conds in St. George.

I am running the MROP board position for exact the same reasons as you can tell from my other postings. The deadline for the statement submittal was just 4-day after receiving the annual meeting notice. I had to email my statement in the format they required right before the deadline. Since you read my statement, at least I got my statement out before all the owners . Hopefully I can keep other owners informed before any other major/simple changes.

brg


----------



## JudyS (Mar 31, 2008)

chemteach said:


> I just received my mailing for the MROP board vote.  What are people's thoughts?  There is someone who posts here who is running, but I'm not certain who it is.  I'm not happy with all the changes so quickly, the special assessment, etc.  Is it time for some new people??
> 
> Thoughts?


I also agree that it is time to take action.  In the past, I felt that MROP was a well-run organization.  However, they have behaved very irresponsibly lately.  There is no excuse for an "after the fact" special assessment like they did.  They were either incompetent (for not knowing that their funding mechanisms were illegal) or dishonest.  Furthermore, their communication regarding the major changes to the exchange system has been terrible.   

I agree that with the way the election has been structured, they are trying to hold onto their board seats whether the members want them to or not.  Whether it will be possible to oust them or not remains to be seen, but I firmly think we should try.

I am pleased that someone here is running for the board.  I would have run, but there's just no way I can get from Michigan to Salt Lake City 4-10 times a year (a requirement which I also believe was designed to keep new people off the board), plus the annual meeting takes place on a major Jewish holiday (which I assume was unintentional.) 

I propose that we give brg our proxies.  As for the board members I would like elected, I plan to vote for all three of the new people running.  This means I will also need to vote for one incumbent.  I think I will vote for the board member who is from Resorts West.  I own two Resorts West MROPs, and from what I know of the history of Resorts West, it's amazing that the members there didn't just lose every penny they had in it. (The developer sold about twice as many vacation club memberships as there were weeks in the Resorts West system, so there weren't enough weeks to go around.  The developer then declared bankruptcy.)  I can't be certain that the Resorts West problems weren't partially the Resorts West's board's fault, but my impression is that the problems were the developer's fault and the board did a good job of salvaging the system. Also, I figure the Resorts West rep is less likely to be a chummy "old boy" with the other MROP board members, since Resorts West just joined MROP a year or two ago. 

I have a list of contact information for about 100 Resorts West owners, although the list is from a few years back.  I am willing to try contacting them, once there is some sort of plan in place.  Brg, would you be willing to start a Yahoo Group for discussing the MROP issues?  Since Yahoo Groups can be used as a mailing list, it is more easily accessed than web pages.  I see that they have sent out these notices less than 3 weeks before the meeting (another attempt for the current board to hold onto their seats, I'm sure) so time is of the essence.  (Sheesh, this is like the Worldmark problems!) 

I think that only a third or so of the board is up for re-election.  So, we can't change the whole board this time around.  However, changing part of the board may make the other members more responsive.  If we can't vote new board members in, we may need to take legal action.  


I see that one of the board candidates gives his email address in the biographical statement.  Brg, was that you?  If not, I suggest getting in touch with that person.


----------



## gravityrules (Mar 31, 2008)

If an MROP member returns the Proxy with the board of trustees appointed as proxy holder (choice I.a) and then leaves Section II 'Election of Trustees' blank, they have just 'written a blank check' to the existing board for all actions and for who they wish to appoint to the board.

Question:  How many people respond to proxies in that manner?

My understanding is that proxies that are not returned are not counted, but there does need to be enough proxies returned (10%) to establish a quorum.

brg, are you planning to attend the annual meeting?


----------



## RayH (Mar 31, 2008)

Is there a way for MROP owners to find out how the board members voted in the last SA meeting? This would be helpful in voting. I agree we need to make some changes on the board.


----------



## brg850 (Mar 31, 2008)

Hopefully most of the owners will cast votes and check mark the candidates on the proxy form before returning it back this time. 

In my opinion, the proxy voting process and the meeting requirements are artificial. These can all be done much better through the internet.

I am not going to the coming annual meeting. Since I will be going to Florida the following week for a meeting. I am willing to set up a Yahoo group if needed, please email me at mrop_special@yahoo.com.  

Brian G. / brg


----------



## JudyS (Apr 1, 2008)

brg850 said:


> Hopefully most of the owners will cast votes and check mark the candidates on the proxy form before returning it back this time.
> 
> In my opinion, the proxy voting process and the meeting requirements are artificial. These can all be done much better through the internet.
> 
> ...


I didn't know it was even possible to run for the board without being at the annual meeting.

I don't feel comfortable giving my proxies to the board.  I'm hoping we can find someone who will be attending, so I can give that person my proxy. 

Brian, I will send you an email.


----------



## RayH (Apr 1, 2008)

JudyS said:


> I didn't know it was even possible to run for the board without being at the annual meeting.
> 
> I don't feel comfortable giving my proxies to the board.  I'm hoping we can find someone who will be attending, so I can give that person my proxy.
> 
> Brian, I will send you an email.



Judy I agree with you, I too don't feel comfortable sending my proxies to the board. It would have been great if Brian was going to the meeting because I think we could trust him since he is running for the board (and most of us would probably be voting for him).

I think we need to use caution sending our proxies to someone we don't know. What's to stop someone from becoming a TUG member and posting a message here saying he will be going to the next meeting and will be happy to take our proxies to the meeting, how do we know he doesn't toss our proxies in the trash. Also, how do we know the person is real and not someone from the current board trying to keep the present board in place as is?


----------



## Passepartout (Apr 1, 2008)

JudyS said:


> I didn't know it was even possible to run for the board without being at the annual meeting.
> 
> I don't feel comfortable giving my proxies to the board.  I'm hoping we can find someone who will be attending, so I can give that person my proxy.
> 
> Brian, I will send you an email.



Brian, JudyS, et al, Paula and I are tentatively planning on attending and hand carrying our ballot. I'm unhappy with the SA, and the pulling down of the former reservation system before a replacement (voted on by the membership) was ready to implement.

We live less than 4 hours from SLC and I'm there nearly daily, so it's do-able for us and can be combined with some other 'big city' activities.

I'll stick my neck out here and ask if anyone wants me to be their proxy, PM me and I will send either/or my address or fax #.  The meeting is 4/19, so there's plenty of time for snail mail.

Jim Ricks


----------



## ausman (Apr 1, 2008)

Jim,

Thanks very much for the offer and I will accept and write Jim Ricks in part b. as my proxy and mail it off.

As I started to vote Noel Hyde off for this fiasco, I realised that the whole current board slate should also go. Since there seem to be only 3 new people I have listed you as a write in vote. 

Listed as:

Scott A. Vincent
Brian Gore
Jonathan Miskin
Jim Ricks

I'll PM you and ask for a fax number so I can sent you the form in case of accidents.


----------



## RayH (Apr 1, 2008)

I hope there is nothing in the bylaws that state proxies must be originals and not faxed copies.

Maybe someone should post a msg on the MROP forum to let others know that someone here on TUG is willing to hand deliver the proxies, just in case they get "lost" in the US mail.


----------



## kpal (Apr 4, 2008)

*Very unhappy with leaders of the group*



RayH said:


> Is there a way for MROP owners to find out how the board members voted in the last SA meeting? This would be helpful in voting. I agree we need to make some changes on the board.



I want that list also IF you got it. kpal


----------



## Passepartout (Apr 5, 2008)

*MROP Board meeting/election*

Moderator: There are 3 threads concerning MROP in Exchanging. I think they should be in Other TS Systems- but that's just me.

I will be attending the board meeting 4/19 in SLC. (in case anyone wants me to hand carry their proxy, just ask)  To bring myself up to speed, I printed the bylaws to read and familiarize myself. As most members know, there was a SA late last year, it was protested, and reinstated to be paid at a later date.  This was to buy some additional units at St George UT., and there were comments as to the legality of using an SA for expansion, not out-of-the-ordinary maintenance issues.

Being a new member, and not familiar with such things, I marked the SA OK, and wrote the check before all the controversy erupted, my thinking being, well, maybe my extended family could have as good a chance as any to use these 3-bedroom, luxury units.

Which brings me to the bylaws. Feel free to read them, owners got instructions to enter the owners only area of the MROP website in the newsletter mailed with the ballots last week. On page 13-14-15 is noted the various classes of membership. Starting with class 'A' and down to class 'T' in order. The last ones are specifically for those members with priority into the new St George 3 bedroom units. Now I have no quarrel with people buying from a developer at any TS to have priority into that resort, but the appearance- whether right or wrong- is that the general membership 0f MROP is in effect purchasing luxury units for the use of a few owners.

I hope to find that there is no connection between the current board of trustees and the purchasers of these class 'T' memberships.

Jim Ricks


----------



## ausman (Apr 5, 2008)

The bylaws can be changed, the Articles require a 76%? vote and they refer to a calendaring priority of 1-5. 

In fact according to the articles, they were to to follow RCI schedule of red, white and blue week intervals, which has been departed from.

The whole thing, SA, change of reservation system etc. seem dodgy at best with no regard to the corporate Articles of Incorporation.

As stated on another thread I don' t trust the current board and would like to see them voted off.


----------



## JudyS (Apr 6, 2008)

Passepartout said:


> ....
> I will be attending the board meeting 4/19 in SLC. (in case anyone wants me to hand carry their proxy, just ask)  To bring myself up to speed, I printed the bylaws to read and familiarize myself. As most members know, there was a SA late last year, it was protested, and reinstated to be paid at a later date.  This was to buy some additional units at St George UT., and there were comments as to the legality of using an SA for expansion, not out-of-the-ordinary maintenance issues.....
> I hope to find that there is no connection between the current board of trustees and the purchasers of these class 'T' memberships.
> 
> Jim Ricks


Jim, I am very happy that you will be attending the meeting!  I plan to send you my proxies (I own two MROPs.) 

What we really need to do is find a way to contact other MROP members.  (Hardly anyone seem to post on the MROP website.)  There are about 11000 MROP members, and I think there were something like 2000 votes cast about the Special Assessment, so we probably need that many votes to elect new board members.  I suspect far more than 20% of the MROP membership is unhappy with the current Board,  but the election procedure is so confusing that they may not know how to vote for new members.  

I'm wondering if Utah law gives us the right to contact other MROP members.   Since this is a corporation, we may have legal rights that typical timeshare owners don't have.  Does anyone know anything about this?  (I may also post on the TUG lounge about this.)  

As for the new St George product, my understanding it that it is a replacement for the Coronado Vacation Village, which was very low quality.  So, having a new, higher quality resort there does make sense.  But, like you, I am concerned that current members might be required to fund this new project, and then not be given an opportunity to use it. 

Also, Jim, you have a PM from me.


----------



## kpal (Apr 6, 2008)

*Mrop SA*



gravityrules said:


> If an MROP member returns the Proxy with the board of trustees appointed as proxy holder (choice I.a) and then leaves Section II 'Election of Trustees' blank, they have just 'written a blank check' to the existing board for all actions and for who they wish to appoint to the board.
> 
> Question:  How many people respond to proxies in that manner?
> 
> ...


----------



## maggie (Apr 6, 2008)

Jim, I have also sent you a PM regarding voting my proxy. Thanks.


----------

