IMPORTANT! We have a Tugger running for the WKORV BOD!

[LisaH]

Jeff, I am sorry you lost. I hope Beatrice will reach out to you and other WKOR owners and be a voice for you all. Someone needs to send this thread Link to Beatrice.

 

[LisaRex]

Just getting Jeff's name on the ballot was an accomplishment. I hope the board listened to the passionate outcry from the owners.

 

[jarta]

"Just getting Jeff's name on the ballot was an accomplishment."

Yes, it was. Jeff should be complimented.

"I hope the board listened to the passionate outcry from the owners."

From oneohana's post, the owners who were there owned plenty of weeks and were passionate, too. Those owners who own multiple weeks are affected by increasing MFs more than someone who owns one week - or someone who trades in from II using a week from a low MF Starwood resort.

The TUG poll on ownership (while a little outdated) shows less than 100 total weeks owned at WKONV and WKORV-N. Gregb estimates there are over 13,800 weeks at WKORV alone. You need more preparation to get more votes. ... eom

 

[LisaRex]

The TUG poll on ownership (while a little outdated) shows less than 100 total weeks owned at WKONV and WKORV-N. Gregb estimates there are over 13,800 weeks at WKORV alone. You need more preparation to get more votes. ... eom

Or we need to put public pressure on them to end their monopoly on the HOA. An expose, if you will.

 

[jarta]

An expose of what? You are implying that the current HOA has done something wrong that needs exposure. Specifically what has the HOA done wrong? ... eom

 

[j4sharks]

Hi All,

I have still not heard anything from Starwood, so I don't know exactly what happened at the meeting. Was there a quorum? Did the designated proxy votes get cast as voted by the owners? How many proxies did the BOD vote themselves? What was the finally tally? In any event, it's certainly a moot point now.

I do appreciate the support and votes from so many of you. Hopefully one of you will consider running in the next open election. Meanwhile, folks should seriously consider exercising their legal rights under Hawaii law to 1) call-in to regular Board meetings, 2) read the meeting minutes and 3) access the HOA membership list and communicate with all owners directly. You can do any or all of these things, and all you have to do is ask Starwood. They cannot say no under Hawaii law.

Now, back to getting iPad ready for the world ...

Jeff

 

[DeniseM]

Jeff - any chance you would be interested again? Since we'd have 10 mos., I'd certainly be willing to help get the word out to more owners.

 

[j4sharks]

Honestly, I'm not the best suited candidate. It would be great to find someone with the skills, passion and TIME to really tackle the role. There is a mountain of information to learn/master at the outset, and then if you really want to be an 'active' BOD member and try to affect change, it will require a time commitment. For ex, BOD members need to spend half a week in Orlando during the Fall for budget meetings and then also attend the annual meeting in Maui (all at HOA expense). But there is also a lot of time on the phone with staff and fellow BOD members, plus time to do due diligence on new ideas/proposals, etc and honestly it's a role best left to someone with more free time available in their schedule.

 

[LisaRex]

An expose of what? You are implying that the current HOA has done something wrong that needs exposure. Specifically what has the HOA done wrong? ... eom

The HOA hasn't done anything wrong, but Starwood has successfully locked owners from running for their own HOA by not allowing anyone to be listed on the ballot who hadn't gotten Starwood's seal of approval...until Jeff called them on it by looking up the local laws (which I have a very hard time believing they didn't know about already). If a writer exposed this practice, along with a chart that showed how MFs increased dramatically, I daresay it would look very bad for Starwood.

 

[DanCali]

Come on, you guys just need to buy more weeks.

I was tempted to pull the trigger on that OF Center this week on eBay... If I had a crystal ball and knew MFs would stabilize over the next 10 years it would be a no brainer at that price. With the prospect of 20% year over year MF increases I can't see how anyone can do that no matter what view they are guaranteed but, then again, I'm not the biggest gambler in the world.

Congratulations to Beatrice - I hope you she is able to increase transparency and sort out the mess that seems to be happening there.

 

[oneohana]

Dan,

I was going to agressively bid on that unit also, but DW wasn't in 100% so I didn't bid. It was tempting though. I could swallow the mf's for a OF unit.

 

[DanCali]

Dan,

I was going to agressively bid on that unit also, but DW wasn't in 100% so I didn't bid. It was tempting though. I could swallow the mf's for a OF unit.

You mean you could swallow the MFs NOW... For an OF unit I probably could too but it's aproaching my limit pretty fast.

What if MFs go to $3000 or $4000... (they are already $3K for OFD)? At a 20% increase a year you can easily get there in 2-3 years... SVO has to do something to stop this cycle or this resort will find itself in dire staits.

 

[jarta]

LisaRex, ... "Starwood has successfully locked owners from running for their own HOA by not allowing anyone to be listed on the ballot who hadn't gotten Starwood's seal of approval...until Jeff called them on it by looking up the local laws (which I have a very hard time believing they didn't know about already)."

First, the owners were never "locked ... from running" by anyone. They simply didn't follow Hawaiian law and request to be on the proxy.

Second, Jeff (j4sharks) followed the procedure of Hawaiian law I posted with a comment that anyone who timely sends in his/her name and a statement either gets a name on the proxy or no names go on the proxy. Jeff followed the statute. His name was added to the proxy.

The practice as far as I can see is that Starwood follows the law. Now that Jeff has followed the law it should be easier for some other TUG member to get the name on the proxy. Jeff said so several posts up from yours.

MF in Hawaii are another thing. They are very high. The WKORV board has given the reasons and they have been posted on TUG. If you have any evidence that the reasons are false, please post it and expose the HOA board.

BTW, there was a report that Marriott has settled with Maui about timeshare assessments. Next year, Marriott's Maui properties will probably see an - as yet unknown - increase in MF due to higher taxes. I assume Marriott owners will not be happy about that. ... eom

 

[DeniseM]

One (big) issue about the election that I have, is that when I contacted the Starwood staff member that is in charge of all elections (before the last election) and asked what the methods were to get on the ballot, he did not reveal that owners could place themselves on the ballot. He stated that the only other way to be nominated was at the board meeting on the day of election. So either he is not well-informed regarding the laws regulating elections, or he chose not to proved the information.

Either way, someone who runs all the BOD elections for Starwood should 1) know local election laws and 2) provide the correct info. when an owner asks.

 

[DanCali]

First, the owners were never "locked ... from running" by anyone. They simply didn't follow Hawaiian law and request to be on the proxy.

jarta - I'm wondering if you can clarify something on this as someone who is familiar with legal nuances...

I'm curious if what you state above would still be your argument in a (let's say a hypothetical) case where someone sent a letter or email to Starwood saying they want to run for the board and were never put on the ballot because of some unknown screening process.

It seems that your argument is that there was no law violated as long as the person didn't specifically say "I want to be on the proxy"?

We've heard at least suspicions in the past that Starwood employs a screening process for Board candidates. Maybe some older threads even have documentation of this actually happenning to people - I haven't checked. Someone on the Marriott BBS recently opened a thread that they experienced the exact same process for a property not in Hawaii, so it wouldn't be a shocker to me if Starwood does the same. That said, it seems your argument is that, as long as one doesn't cite the exact statute or request in a specific manner, then simply indicating an intent to run for a Board position for a Hawaii property in an unequivocal manner may not be sufficient and Starwood could still (legally) deny their request?

 

[DeniseM]

Dan - there are Tuggers who have applied to Starwood via the application process and were rejected. It's documented.

 

[l2trade]

I want to thank Jeff Hyman for running for the HOA and educating many SVO owners in the process of doing so! I hope more owners get involved in order to improve things for everyone. One big eye opener for myself, although I guess I've known this all along, is that the financial situation for owners vary greatly. I've been tempted to purchase WKORV resales in the past. Considering long term maintenance fee challenges, it is becoming clear to me that owning Hawaii is not in the cards for my future budgets or life circumstances. What may seem painful to me, may not really mean much to others. The HOA is the main line of defense in keeping costs affordable without greatly sacrificing quality. It is only my 'perception' that HOA fees are too high. I wonder what the board thinks about it and whether bringing costs down is a top priority for them.

 

[TheUnitrep]

We've heard at least suspicions in the past that Starwood employs a screening process for Board candidates. Maybe some older threads even have documentation of this actually happenning to people - I haven't checked.

In 2005, I made it to the "telephone interview" phase of the WKORV BOD election process. Shawn O'Brien conducted the interview, which lasted approximately 10 minutes.

I was never contacted after this, and my name was not included on the ballot I received for the next election.

So yes......a screening process existed in the recent past. I'm not certain if it still is used though.

 

[jarta]

"We've heard at least suspicions in the past that Starwood employs a screening process for Board candidates. Maybe some older threads even have documentation of this actually happenning to people - I haven't checked."

Jeff (j4sharks) was invited to be interviewed/screened by the WKORV HOA. He never reported back how it went and what he was asked. Perhaps he could enlighten us.

I assume that anyone who is on the proxy form is interviewed. I am sure that the WKORV HOA board knows that most of the proxies will be returned with no person checked and without the "for quorum purposes only" checked. So, they can vote the proxies as they feel is best for the resort.

And, they did. A well-qualified person was chosen (IMO). Jeff, another well-qualified person, was not. Unless Jeff has/had enough proxies where he was specifically designated as the person the HOA board was to cast a vote for, the unmarked proxies will win every time.

This is not an issue unique to Starwood or WKORV. That's the way it goes whenever a corporate or association board election is held in the US. Unless the opponents of the board have sufficient proxies, they will be swamped by the ones returned to the board that are unmarked and can be cast as the board sees fit.

Your problem is not with Starwood about this. Your problem is with every State legislature in the US. This part of the law about corporate and association board elections is, as far as I know, consistent throughout the entire US.

The sitting board always has a great deal to say about who will join them. If you don't like it, get those proxies returned with a name checked. And, start organizing early for the next election fight.

One last thing. Jeff is/was well-qualified. However, from the time Jeff got on the WKORV proxy, there was no abatement in the unsupported personal accusations of wrongdoing on TUG about Starwood and the WKORV board. Given that vocal position here, wouldn't that diminish Jeff's chances of being selected? Anyone on the WKORV board would have a fiduciary obligation to all the WKORV owners- not just TUG members. I think Jeff would have fulfilled that obligation. But, others might not be as sure. People are people. ... eom

 

[DeniseM]

Clarification: Jeff was interviewed AFTER he quoted Hawaii law to them, and after he was notified that he would be on the ballot.

In the past, Tuggers who applied using the application sent out to all owners in the standard mailing, were interviewed first, and then were screened, and then approved or rejected by the BOD or someone - sounds like Shawn O'Brien does the interviews. See post #118 for one Tugger's personal experience.

Jeff's experience, and previous practice, are clearly not the same.

 

[DanCali]

"We've heard at least suspicions in the past that Starwood employs a screening process for Board candidates. Maybe some older threads even have documentation of this actually happenning to people - I haven't checked."

Jeff (j4sharks) was invited to be interviewed/screened by the WKORV HOA. He never reported back how it went and what he was asked. Perhaps he could enlighten us.

I assume that anyone who is on the proxy form is interviewed. I am sure that the WKORV HOA board knows that most of the proxies will be returned with no person checked and without the "for quorum purposes only" checked. So, they can vote the proxies as they feel is best for the resort.

And, they did. A well-qualified person was chosen (IMO). Jeff, another well-qualified person, was not. Unless Jeff has/had enough proxies where he was specifically designated as the person the HOA board was to cast a vote for, the unmarked proxies will win every time.

This is not an issue unique to Starwood or WKORV. That's the way it goes whenever a corporate or association board election is held in the US. Unless the opponents of the board have sufficient proxies, they will be swamped by the ones returned to the board that are unmarked and can be cast as the board sees fit.

Your problem is not with Starwood about this. Your problem is with every State legislature in the US. This part of the law about corporate and association board elections is, as far as I know, consistent throughout the entire US.

The sitting board always has a great deal to say about who will join them. If you don't like it, get those proxies returned with a name checked. And, start organizing early for the next election fight.

One last thing. Jeff is/was well-qualified. However, from the time Jeff got on the WKORV proxy, there was no abatement in the unsupported personal accusations of wrongdoing on TUG about Starwood and the WKORV board. Given that vocal position here, wouldn't that diminish Jeff's chances of being selected? Anyone on the WKORV board would have a fiduciary obligation to all the WKORV owners- not just TUG members. I think Jeff would have fulfilled that obligation. But, others might not be as sure. People are people. ... eom

jarta,

Unfortunately, you either didn't answer, or skillfully deflected my question or if you answered it then the answer was too convoluted for me to understand...

Let me try to simplify my question... The hawaii statute being what it is - if Starwood acts as described in post #118 and screens candidates who demonstrate an interest in being on the Board rather than placing them on the proxy - does this sound legal to you?

In other words - does someone need to come up with the exact words Jeff did (e.g. "I want to be on the proxy") in order to force them to put someone on the ballot and if they say anything else (e.g. "I want to run for the Board") then they can be screened out legally? Or does showing a desire to run for the Board satisfy the Hawaii statute and a behavior on part of Starwood as in post #118 sound fishy to you?

 

[jarta]

DanCali, ... Here's the portion of the Hawaii statute concerning association elections.

514B-123(h) says:

"h) With respect to the use of association funds to distribute proxies:

(1) Any board that intends to use association funds to distribute proxies, including the standard proxy form referred to in subsection (d)(3), shall first post notice of its intent to distribute proxies in prominent locations within the project at least twenty-one days before its distribution of proxies. If the board receives within seven days of the posted notice a request by any owner for use of association funds to solicit proxies accompanied by a statement, the board shall mail to all owners either:

(A) A proxy form containing the names of all owners who have requested the use of association funds for soliciting proxies accompanied by their statements; or

(B) A proxy form containing no names, but accompanied by a list of names of all owners who have requested the use of association funds for soliciting proxies and their statements.

The statement, which shall be limited to black text on white paper, shall not exceed one single-sided 8‑1/2" x 11" page, indicating the owner's qualifications to serve on the board or reasons for wanting to receive proxies; and

(2) A board or member of the board may use association funds to solicit proxies as part of the distribution of proxies. If a member of the board, as an individual, seeks to solicit proxies using association funds, the board member shall proceed as a unit owner under paragraph (1)."

It's really quite simple if you take the time to read it. Jeff timely sent in his request and his statement. So, he had to be put on the standard proxy form with names and the statements (A) or a blank proxy had to be sent out and accompanied by a list of all owners who made a request and and their statements (B). The standard proxy form is the one everyone could not understand, but it comes from the same section of the statute in (d)(3).

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0514B/HRS_0514B-0123.htm

I'm sorry, Dan, that you post that you think I am trying to deflect the question or not answer it. The statute itself answers all your questions. And, it's the same answer I gave you before. Again, read the statute. ... eom

 

[DanCali]

DanCali, ... Here's the portion of the Hawaii statute concerning association elections.

514B-123(h) says:

"h) With respect to the use of association funds to distribute proxies:

(1) Any board that intends to use association funds to distribute proxies, including the standard proxy form referred to in subsection (d)(3), shall first post notice of its intent to distribute proxies in prominent locations within the project at least twenty-one days before its distribution of proxies. If the board receives within seven days of the posted notice a request by any owner for use of association funds to solicit proxies accompanied by a statement, the board shall mail to all owners either:

(A) A proxy form containing the names of all owners who have requested the use of association funds for soliciting proxies accompanied by their statements; or

(B) A proxy form containing no names, but accompanied by a list of names of all owners who have requested the use of association funds for soliciting proxies and their statements.

The statement, which shall be limited to black text on white paper, shall not exceed one single-sided 8‑1/2" x 11" page, indicating the owner's qualifications to serve on the board or reasons for wanting to receive proxies; and

(2) A board or member of the board may use association funds to solicit proxies as part of the distribution of proxies. If a member of the board, as an individual, seeks to solicit proxies using association funds, the board member shall proceed as a unit owner under paragraph (1)."

It's really quite simple if you take the time to read it. Jeff timely sent in his request and his statement. So, he had to be put on the standard proxy form with names and the statements (A) or a blank proxy had to be sent out and accompanied by a list of all owners who made a request and and their statements (B). The standard proxy form is the one everyone could not understand, but it comes from the same section of the statute in (d)(3).

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0514B/HRS_0514B-0123.htm

I'm sorry, Dan, that you post that you think I am trying to deflect the question or not answer it. The statute itself answers all your questions. And, it's the same answer I gave you before. Again, read the statute. ... eom

jarta - you just did it again... I guess 40 years or trial work will do that to you!

I asked a simple question - you can answer it with Yes or No or be more specific... but please be more direct.

The Hawaii statute being what it is - if Starwood acts as described in post #118 and screens candidates who demonstrate an interest in being on the Board rather than placing them on the proxy - does this sound legal (in compliance with the staute) to you?

Again, from your hints/answers above you make it sound like unless you act word for word as in the statute they can turn you down. I can see that interpretation... But in my eyes, if someone indicates a desite to run for the board (which is obvious since some people were actually interviewed), it seems to me that, given the statute, they should be allowed to run...

But then again - I'm not the lawyer... you are.

I agree with LisaRex though... Legal or not this looks fishy and would be great material for some investigative reporter. And if it is not legal they would have a huge PR problem on their hand...

 

[Ken555]

I asked a simple question - you can answer it with Yes or No or be more specific... but please be more direct.

Dan,

It's quite hard for any attorney to provide a yes or no answer... especially for someone who's not a client. You know he won't be more specific, so I'd suggest you take his advice and read the statute and make your own conclusions.

The best way to get a corporation to follow the law, is to follow it yourself. If you want to be on the ballot, just do what Jeff did and you'll end up there.

Have fun out there!

Ken

 

[DanCali]

Dan,

It's quite hard for any attorney to provide a yes or no answer... especially for someone who's not a client. You know he won't be more specific, so I'd suggest you take his advice and read the statute and make your own conclusions.

The best way to get a corporation to follow the law, is to follow it yourself. If you want to be on the ballot, just do what Jeff did and you'll end up there.

Have fun out there!

Ken

Ken - thanks for the head up on what to expect... Here is where I'm coming from...

jarta responded to Lisa by saying "First, the owners were never "locked ... from running" by anyone. They simply didn't follow Hawaiian law and request to be on the proxy."

To me, it sounds like the person in post 118 (TheUnitrep) did made a request to run for the Board. To me, that means a "request to be on the proxy." If they were missing a bio, Starwood should have asked for one... To me, it sounds like TheUnitrep was "locked from running" - due to a convenient technicality Starwood did not bother to correct. According to Denise, this is not the only case Starwood screened people out... and this is probably not the only resort where it's being done.

I wanted to hear from jarta (not as a lawyer, but as an owner who is well versed with legal issues and who should also be concerned about this practice) what he thinks of this practice. Too much to hope for? I don't know...

As for me being on the ballot at some resort - that's not in the cards. I'm about to get much busier in April so you'll probably see much less of me on here after the next 4-5 weeks. I'll do my best to keep up with current concerns!