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

[TJCNewYork]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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."

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]

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.

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]

So what does your resort do?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Great job Dioxide, thank you. ...

Yep, another good reference post, thanks.

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yep, another good reference post, thanks.



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.

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

 

[SueDonJ]

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]

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.