Marriott Aruba Ocean Club Owners Being Ripped Off By Marriott - READ IF AN OWNER

[tlwmkw]

Modoaruba,

If you are having a discussion with someone at the bbq, by the pool, or on the beach at the ocean club and happen to discuss the concerned owners group then no one could fault you for giving a card or information to those people. That is entirely appropriate. I think what suedonj is talking about is actual soliciting where you are foisting the information on people without any preamble. There is a subtle difference between the two.

By the way, why is no one responding to my question as to how you think MVCI can control the board? You keep stating they are puppets but you give no proof of how this can be done by Marriott. If you make these assertions then you need to be able to back them up. Your group should stick to facts and not make things up.

tlwmkw

 

[SueDonJ]

Honestly, Modo, I'm not using a "tone." But there's no way for me to prove that, and pretty much I've used enough words to try to understand you and get you to understand me, so we're probably done for now. It's been interesting, again.

Except, I'm not getting why you and LoveAruba have introduced yesterday's MA election into this discussion. Regardless of the "why" Scott Brown was elected, the "how" was simply a majority rule. That's how politics works. Timeshares work differently. I don't see the connection.

 

[ecwinch]

Give me a break.Your tone is absurd.
I am not doing anything but trying to get a message to the owners of what is taking place without siding with anyone.
I feel that the prevention and obstacles having been put forth by MVCI and the BOD in having information filter to all of the owners from their constituants,speaks volumes that there is something to hide.
It is up to all the owners to decide on what to do with the info.
My main concern is that the messengers keep getting shot at.
Rules or no rules,that is wrong.
Look where closed door meetings got your senator elected.The people have spoken.
And yes it's my home for that week.

The messengers are "getting shot at" due to their tactics in delivering the message.

The AOC board has made a business decision based on the facts and in the best interest of the owners to not pursue litigation and to accept MVCI's offer to share the costs of the roof repair. They are your duly elected board, and that decision was made when Allan was on the board.

But your group disagrees and want's to reverse that majority decision of the board. And the only legal recourse you have to challenge that decision is to prove that the AOC BoD was under the control of MVCI and abandoned their fiduciary responsibilities to the owners. Unfortunately, you offer no proof of this control, similar to most of your claims.

And if your group has the numbers that have been claimed, why not just introduce a by-law amendment modeled after the Nevada statute that Allan claims would meet your requirements?

 

[modoaruba]

Honestly, Modo, I'm not using a "tone." But there's no way for me to prove that, and pretty much I've used enough words to try to understand you and get you to understand me, so we're probably done for now. It's been interesting, again.

Except, I'm not getting why you and LoveAruba have introduced yesterday's MA election into this discussion. Regardless of the "why" Scott Brown was elected, the "how" was simply a majority rule. That's how politics works. Timeshares work differently. I don't see the connection.

The reason the election was introduced was because the result was due to the political climate ignoring the contituancy.
The people were made aware of what was happening and they wanted real change.
If meetings were taped we can see who runs the meetings.

 

[marksue]

The messengers are "getting shot at" due to their tactics in delivering the message.


But your group disagrees and want's to reverse that majority decision of the board. And the only legal recourse you have to challenge that decision is to prove that the AOC BoD was under the control of MVCI and abandoned their fiduciary responsibilities to the owners. Unfortunately, you offer no proof of this control, similar to most of your claims.

QUOTE]


That was the initial goal. All we are doing now is trying to get information to all owners. If Marriott sends out our mailing to all owners that is fine. With there refusal to send out our mailing, which we agreed to pay for, that is why we are now going after the entire list of owners ad thier contact information. Inthe meantime we will do all we can to get people to our site, none of which is illegal.

The level of distrust is due to Marriott and the boards actions many of which ahv been documented, which have been documented right here on tug.

 

[SueDonJ]

The reason the election was introduced was because the result was due to the political climate ignoring the contituancy.

Well, the way I see it, the "constituency" at MAOC has not been ignored. In fact several different issues were raised by the "concerned owners" group that resulted in votes being required from owners. It's not Marriott's problem or fault that the "concerned owners" did not have benefit of legal counsel enough so that their issues could be presented exactly as they wanted them to be, and that they were on the losing side of the majority-rule results of those votes. Marriott et al have been proactive and are working with a competent legal team; the same cannot be said for the "concerned owners" group.

The people were made aware of what was happening and they wanted real change.

If you're trying to equate this to MAOC, which I guess you are, then the "people" must refer to the owners? Okay, well, the owners have been made aware of what is happening. Throughout this developing situation there have been more official communications from Marriott et al about the issues that concern the resort's owners, the BOD, the management company and the developer than there have been issued by any other MVCI resort.

The "people" wanted real change? Sure, some of them, a minority number of them, did. But the majority didn't, and the reasons for that are irrelevant. The excuse that some members of the "concerned owners" group attribute to owners who have not joined their efforts, that those owners are completely ignorant of what's transpired at your shared resort, holds no water at all. Marriott has contacted them and made the very same information available to them that they've made to you. So, they're either apathetic or they've accepted the explanations in those myriad Marriott communications. But again, it doesn't matter why they voted the way they did against the change your group wants.

Even if the "concerned owners" group consisted of 100% owner participation, the contractual obligations still require that you would have to follow contracted stipulations and proper legal procedures in order to effect change at your resort. The terms of the contracts would still apply, meaning that the costs for such legal actions would still rest with the owners. Sure, 100% voter support would mean that your group would be on the winning side of the votes, but what does that really mean?

After the first, you may have ultimately succeeded in ousting member(s) of the BOD. Like tlwmkw and others have asked repeatedly, what could you do to assure that the new member(s) voted in as replacements would satisfy the expectations of your group? In respect to the unsubstantiated allegations of your group that Marriott has installed a "puppet" BOD, none of you have yet to explain how exactly that was done. Without knowing how it is done you certainly can't expect to be able to stop it from happening again.

After the next several votes, if you had 100% or a majority of the votes, you would have had access to the ownership's contact information. What then? You'd contact them all, at your expense, to give them whatever information you think is your smoking gun. (Which, again, if it is as damaging to Marriott et al as you allege, should have been produced a long time ago so as to prevent the legal fees.) You would still have to follow procedure and put individual concerns up for separate Special Meetings to enact a vote on the separate issues, and you would still be subject to the owners being apathetic about the issues or understanding of Marriott's myriad explanations.

[edited to add:} The flip side, of course, of 100% owner participation in the "concerned owners" group is that Marriott et al would recognize that the ownership was interested in a resort which would be run in many ways contrary to the Marriott-managed resort standard, at which point they'd probably take action to dissolve the management contract between MVCI and MAOC.

If meetings were taped we can see who runs the meetings.

As tlwmkw, who appears to be knowledgeable about such things, related here and here, you probably could work out arrangements to tape certain meeting activity if you're willing to accept the costs and requirements of a professional agency. Complete informal access to every meeting will not happen; that expectation is unreasonable based on the business standards.

 

[modoaruba]

You are ignoring that I am saying that the group never had a chance to present their story due to the "rules".
So the outcomes you portrait are as you say.
I am not debating that.
This entire vote we just had at the OC was a sham.
Owners were deceived that the info was going to be used other than what was intended.And that was to let them read concerns of other owners.
There was a threat of increased legal fees.Not if the BOD allowed the communication to occur.
The BOD and MVCI sent reminders to vote.The group could not.
It is like having campaign signs along our roadways prior to elections,but only one party can advertise.
Welcome to the USSR

 

[SueDonJ]

You are ignoring that I am saying that the group never had a chance to present their story due to the "rules".
So the outcomes you portrait are as you say.
I am not debating that.
This entire vote we just had at the OC was a sham.
Owners were deceived that the info was going to be used other than what was intended.And that was to let them read concerns of other owners.
There was a threat of increased legal fees.Not if the BOD allowed the communication to occur.
The BOD and MVCI sent reminders to vote.The group could not.
It is like having campaign signs along our roadways prior to elections,but only one party can advertise.
Welcome to the USSR

Modo, how did you find out about the "concerned owners" group and what convinced you to join their efforts? Think about it. Whatever your answer is here, EVERY owner who is dissatisfied with the situation at your resort has the exact same avenues available to make the exact same choice that you did. You can't force owners to seek out information any more than you can force them to give you the choicest unit whenever you visit the resort. And you can't force information onto them unless they give you their permission.

No surprise, I disagree that the vote was a sham because it followed procedure. The governing docs contained an amendment pertaining to the contact info for each owner; a change to that amendment was the proper form for introducing the issue of making contact information available to other owners. (As opposed to a brand new amendment, which would conflict with the existing one.) The fact that Marriott was proactive in wording the change in the bylaw amendment such that owners would conceivably be worried about their contact information being made available to non-owners was a smart business decision, as was Marriott's communication to the owners explaining what the results of voting for the change could conceivably mean at any point in the future. The blame for more restrictive language (that would satisfy the "concerned owners" group but not allow contact info access to anyone but owners) not being included in the change rests solely with the "concerned owners" group, both because they gave notice to Marriott what their intentions were and because they allowed Marriott to jump in ahead of them to call the Special Meeting.

The "concerned owners" group is the underdog here, no doubt, and has been from the very beginning of this situation. But underdogs have to play by the rules, too.

 

[modoaruba]

The way I found out about what is going on was by sheer accident.
I was having a conversation with a board member regarding a concern I had with a room I was given.In that conversation I was told of a few things about the resort I wasn't aware of and was asked if I heard of TUG.
Until then I hadn't heard of any of this nor this board.
After having read this thread,you can see for yourself that I have not posted at the beginning,I became interested.
If that conversation had not occured I might never have heard about the group and most likely would have thrown out the mailing regarding the vote.

 

[tlwmkw]

Modo,

Why are you so surprised by Marriott with-holding personal information about owners. If you have access to the contact information to all owners at the ocean club then does that entitle any owner to this information? I think that is why Marriott worded things the way they did- they would be giving information to a group which they have no control over (and who could then sell or release that information to anyone else), and it would set a precedent that any owner could access this information for whatever purpose they see fit. With identity theft and other problems becoming rampant I can quite understand why Marriott would resist releasing contact information. If they did they would be liable in a huge way if that information fell into the wrong hands. As an owner there you should be glad that they are protecting your information so vigorously.

tlwmkw

 

[modoaruba]

Modo,

Why are you so surprised by Marriott with-holding personal information about owners. If you have access to the contact information to all owners at the ocean club then does that entitle any owner to this information? I think that is why Marriott worded things the way they did- they would be giving information to a group which they have no control over (and who could then sell or release that information to anyone else), and it would set a precedent that any owner could access this information for whatever purpose they see fit. With identity theft and other problems becoming rampant I can quite understand why Marriott would resist releasing contact information. If they did they would be liable in a huge way if that information fell into the wrong hands. As an owner there you should be glad that they are protecting your information so vigorously.

tlwmkw

You really believe that?No other motive?

 

[ecwinch]

The messengers are "getting shot at" due to their tactics in delivering the message.


But your group disagrees and want's to reverse that majority decision of the board. And the only legal recourse you have to challenge that decision is to prove that the AOC BoD was under the control of MVCI and abandoned their fiduciary responsibilities to the owners. Unfortunately, you offer no proof of this control, similar to most of your claims.

QUOTE]


That was the initial goal. All we are doing now is trying to get information to all owners. If Marriott sends out our mailing to all owners that is fine. With there refusal to send out our mailing, which we agreed to pay for, that is why we are now going after the entire list of owners ad thier contact information. Inthe meantime we will do all we can to get people to our site, none of which is illegal.

The level of distrust is due to Marriott and the boards actions many of which ahv been documented, which have been documented right here on tug.

What actions? That they have not made things easy for your group? That they adhered to the by-laws in governing the HOA? That they did not allow Allan to ignore the by-laws pertaining to term limits? That you attempted to ignore the by-laws and wanted to create your own process for a recall election?

If your intent is simply to inform your fellow owners, then stop trying to manipulate their opinion by partial, inaccurate, and biased information. Presenting only the information that is most favorable to your position is not informing someone. The BoD has no obligation to disseminate information of the type you have presented here.

You want to present this picture that your hands are clean, and all you want to do is communicate with your fellow owners. However you cannot erase your actions of the last 12 months. It is incredibly naive to think that the Board is not well-justified in opposing you given the history that is well-documented in this thread. You now seemingly want them to forget about that period in order to provide you with the access you desire.

And since you seemingly now are dropping your objective of reversing the decision not sue MVCI over the roof, what are the material changes you are seeking the current board to make? You formed the mob against the perfect storm of the economy and a large increase in m/f. But were now will you lead them?

 

[lovearuba]

open communication

What actions? That they have not made things easy for your group? That they adhered to the by-laws in governing the HOA? That they did not allow Allan to ignore the by-laws pertaining to term limits? That you attempted to ignore the by-laws and wanted to create your own process for a recall election?

If your intent is simply to inform your fellow owners, then stop trying to manipulate their opinion by partial, inaccurate, and biased information. Presenting only the information that is most favorable to your position is not informing someone. The BoD has no obligation to disseminate information of the type you have presented here.

You want to present this picture that your hands are clean, and all you want to do is communicate with your fellow owners. However you cannot erase your actions of the last 12 months. It is incredibly naive to think that the Board is not well-justified in opposing you given the history that is well-documented in this thread. You now seemingly want them to forget about that period in order to provide you with the access you desire.

And since you seemingly now are dropping your objective of reversing the decision not sue MVCI over the roof, what are the material changes you are seeking the current board to make? You formed the mob against the perfect storm of the economy and a large increase in m/f. But were now will you lead them?

This is not about going back and fighting over money for a roof. That train already left the track, Its not about Marksue or Allan's effots to get Marriott to pay for maintenance problems that we feel strongly they should be responsible for paying. Its about getting a board that is transparent with their actions, not a board that is silent in board meetings and allowing Marriott to run the meeting. Its about being willing to sit down with the owners that have concerns and listening, It doesnt mean you have to agree, its really about respecting owners opinions. Putting surveillance on owners that are giving out web cards on a public beach is not right. For folks here weighing in and defending the solicitation excuse and asking owners that complain about this tactic to absolutely confirm that they did not step on Marriott's property shows disrespect for owners concerns. Is it Marriott's property or does it belong to the same owners that are asking other owners to go to the website and check it out. No one questions the Aloe Man in Aruba. Marriott knows he's there and he is definately soliciting. Setting up meetings at times that will ensure low owner partiicpation is just plain not right. When you disect the claims of the owners, be fair. Also seriously disect Marriott's action and the Boards actions. I know this is hard, especially if you have a vested interest in Marriott and especially if you feel they are good to you. Its okay to hide behind bylaws that were developed to protect Marriott but its also okay to queston why some of the actions of Marriott are just not right.

 

[SueDonJ]

The way I found out about what is going on was by sheer accident.
I was having a conversation with a board member regarding a concern I had with a room I was given.In that conversation I was told of a few things about the resort I wasn't aware of and was asked if I heard of TUG.
Until then I hadn't heard of any of this nor this board.
After having read this thread,you can see for yourself that I have not posted at the beginning,I became interested.
If that conversation had not occured I might never have heard about the group and most likely would have thrown out the mailing regarding the vote.

Hmmm. Interesting. Was this the same board member who suggested to Mark that there were many owners who were interested in joining a class action suit against Marriott, which is what Mark posted when he began this thread? Or have there been two (or more) board members who have pointed owners in the direction of an adversarial relationship with Marriott?

 

[SueDonJ]

This is not about going back and fighting over money for a roof. That train already left the track, Its not about Marksue or Allan's effots to get Marriott to pay for maintenance problems that we feel strongly they should be responsible for paying. Its about getting a board that is transparent with their actions, not a board that is silent in board meetings and allowing Marriott to run the meeting. Its about being willing to sit down with the owners that have concerns and listening, It doesnt mean you have to agree, its really about respecting owners opinions. Putting surveillance on owners that are giving out web cards on a public beach is not right. For folks here weighing in and defending the solicitation excuse and asking owners that complain about this tactic to absolutely confirm that they did not step on Marriott's property shows disrespect for owners concerns. Is it Marriott's property or does it belong to the same owners that are asking other owners to go to the website and check it out. No one questions the Aloe Man in Aruba. Marriott knows he's there and he is definately soliciting. Setting up meetings at times that will ensure low owner partiicpation is just plain not right. When you disect the claims of the owners, be fair. Also seriously disect Marriott's action and the Boards actions. I know this is hard, especially if you have a vested interest in Marriott and especially if you feel they are good to you. Its okay to hide behind bylaws that were developed to protect Marriott but its also okay to queston why some of the actions of Marriott are just not right.

You keep saying, "not right." Not right according to what? As long as what Marriott does is supported by the governing docs, even if you don't like whatever they do and/or however they do it, you don't have a right to demand that they change what they do and/or how they do it. You simply don't.

So if what they've done isn't illegal or something that constitutes a breach of the contract between you and Marriott, you're pretty much wasting your time and your money. But, it's your time and money, you can certainly spend it however you want to.

 

[modoaruba]

Hmmm. Interesting. Was this the same board member who suggested to Mark that there were many owners who were interested in joining a class action suit against Marriott, which is what Mark posted when he began this thread? Or have there been two (or more) board members who have pointed owners in the direction of an adversarial relationship with Marriott?

What is your intent with this line of questioning aside from that the conversation was against the rules?

 

[cruisin]

You keep saying, "not right." Not right according to what? As long as what Marriott does is supported by the governing docs, even if you don't like whatever they do and/or however they do it, you don't have a right to demand that they change what they do and/or how they do it. You simply don't.

So if what they've done isn't illegal or something that constitutes a breach of the contract between you and Marriott, you're pretty much wasting your time and your money. But, it's your time and money, you can certainly spend it however you want to.

I agree.

Marriott has done a better job than most in making owners think that Marriott cares about them. They care about their bottom line. The bad economy has exposed the true nature of the timeshare developers. As they have less resorts to sell, they will not need to pretend they care, it will not matter, Marriott kept their maintenence fees artificially low until the last few years, and that was not because they cared.

If I owned here, I would probably be a part of the concerned owners group for only as long as it took me to get rid of the thing. If it is really as bad as represented, then it will be worthless soon enough. Even a court case looks doomed in a place like Aruba. I would have a hard time believing a judge in Aruba would decide against $$Mariott$$ regardless of "right and wrong"

 

[SueDonJ]

What is your intent with this line of questioning aside from that the conversation was against the rules?

I just find it interesting, that's all, because I don't remember you mentioning it any of the times that something similar was discussed here. Namely, Mark's statement and later retraction that a board member suggested to him that owners might consider a class action suit against Marriott. I have no idea if your conversation with a board member consisted of the same suggestion, so can't say if it broke the same rules that Mark's did.

 

[Dean]

Dean,does this mean beer is off?Hope not.
I brought to light motive again.For posters to be so passionate on either side there is motive.Sue is a shareholder.That is not an attack.You state yourself that you have a stake in Marriott.That is your motive.Not an attack by me.

As far as Eric states that the group has to be smarter think of this,
Today alone this thread had hundreds of hits and still going.How many curious readers are more inclined to visit the group's site just out of curiousity?They will tell their TS friends who will tell others and so on.
With all the various weeks owned by the group and others,the coverage of telling the story is pretty much covered while at the resort.
This is a great advertisement tool not only for owners but also potential buyers of any TS.
As long as we debate,the larger the group grows.

I disagree, I see your post as an attack on Sue's ethics. No one is going to post if they have no interest at all. Had you pointed out that it COULD affect her position, she could have responded but you stated emphatically that that was her motive, implying her only or main motive I have interest simply due it it being Marriott. While I don't own Marriott stock, I have a number of Marriott weeks. A quote that I think sums it up is that "the middle is to the right of the left".

This is not about going back and fighting over money for a roof. That train already left the track, Its not about Marksue or Allan's effots to get Marriott to pay for maintenance problems that we feel strongly they should be responsible for paying. Its about getting a board that is transparent with their actions, not a board that is silent in board meetings and allowing Marriott to run the meeting. Its about being willing to sit down with the owners that have concerns and listening, It doesnt mean you have to agree, its really about respecting owners opinions. Putting surveillance on owners that are giving out web cards on a public beach is not right.

As I've said before, there is no real measure to determine if you get what you want in transparency unless time dictates another similar event to compare. As for soliciting, I would not expect Marriott to allow any and even if technically legal, I would expect them to attempt to stop it. Just like they should not allow a magazine with a negative add to be distributed.

 

[Dean]

That was the initial goal. All we are doing now is trying to get information to all owners. If Marriott sends out our mailing to all owners that is fine. With there refusal to send out our mailing, which we agreed to pay for, that is why we are now going after the entire list of owners ad thier contact information. Inthe meantime we will do all we can to get people to our site, none of which is illegal.

The level of distrust is due to Marriott and the boards actions many of which ahv been documented, which have been documented right here on tug.

Am I understanding this correctly? So you've abandoned legal measures against the resort and Marriott? Marriott's won, you've given up? BTW, I'd qualify dropping the legal avenues and just trying to make everyone aware as throwing in the towel if that's the case.

 

[ecwinch]

This is not about going back and fighting over money for a roof. That train already left the track, Its not about Marksue or Allan's effots to get Marriott to pay for maintenance problems that we feel strongly they should be responsible for paying. Its about getting a board that is transparent with their actions, not a board that is silent in board meetings and allowing Marriott to run the meeting. Its about being willing to sit down with the owners that have concerns and listening, It doesnt mean you have to agree, its really about respecting owners opinions. Putting surveillance on owners that are giving out web cards on a public beach is not right. For folks here weighing in and defending the solicitation excuse and asking owners that complain about this tactic to absolutely confirm that they did not step on Marriott's property shows disrespect for owners concerns. Is it Marriott's property or does it belong to the same owners that are asking other owners to go to the website and check it out. No one questions the Aloe Man in Aruba. Marriott knows he's there and he is definately soliciting. Setting up meetings at times that will ensure low owner partiicpation is just plain not right. When you disect the claims of the owners, be fair. Also seriously disect Marriott's action and the Boards actions. I know this is hard, especially if you have a vested interest in Marriott and especially if you feel they are good to you. Its okay to hide behind bylaws that were developed to protect Marriott but its also okay to queston why some of the actions of Marriott are just not right.

Dissect the actions of your group before you venture down that path. You cannot defame MVCI and the Board for 12 months and not expect that those actions will have consequences. Allan cannot ignore how he violated his fiduciary responsibilities as a elected member of the board by encouraging Mark's efforts. He cannot ignore how he abused his position by providing e-mail addresses of owners to encourage opposition with the decisions of the board. It was those tactics and others that are governing the manner in which the Board is dealing with you now.

At one moment in time I believe there was an opportunity for this to be resolved in the manner you suggest. Many suggested it. But one only needs read the title of this thread to recognized that nature of Mark's attacks on the board quickly closed that option.

Given how the Board has been demonized here, what would be the point of it? You cannot un-ring that bell.

 

[modoaruba]

I just find it interesting, that's all, because I don't remember you mentioning it any of the times that something similar was discussed here. Namely, Mark's statement and later retraction that a board member suggested to him that owners might consider a class action suit against Marriott. I have no idea if your conversation with a board member consisted of the same suggestion, so can't say if it broke the same rules that Mark's did.

The conversation was more of owner to owner with concern that a lot of information is being kept from the owners for obvious reasons.No mention of legal action was mentioned.
Tug was suggested as a source of information.
I did not take sides completely.
I researched on my own by going on Aruba history sites,talking to owners,talking to OC staff,reading TUG and other sites.
I have to commend the board member in allowing me to research on my own before coming to any conclusion.

I see both sides.I have always marched to the beat of a different drum. So having to uphold to bylaws to the nth degree where one could be blinded as to the possibility of them being obstructive to the seeking of truth goes against my grain.

I would love to see every owner with the information the group has along with that of MVCI and the BOD.

As one can see from the voter turn out,the status quo probably will not change but the opportunity was given to every owner to appreciate that their co-owners have tried to share a concern that affects them.

 

[ecwinch]

The conversation was more of owner to owner with concern that a lot of information is being kept from the owners for obvious reasons.No mention of legal action was mentioned.
Tug was suggested as a source of information.
I did not take sides completely.
I researched on my own by going on Aruba history sites,talking to owners,talking to OC staff,reading TUG and other sites.
I have to commend the board member in allowing me to research on my own before coming to any conclusion.

I see both sides.I have always marched to the beat of a different drum. So having to uphold to bylaws to the nth degree where one could be blinded as to the possibility of them being obstructive to the seeking of truth goes against my grain.

I would love to see every owner with the information the group has along with that of MVCI and the BOD.

As one can see from the voter turn out,the status quo probably will not change but the opportunity was given to every owner to appreciate that their co-owners have tried to share a concern that affects them.

This actually is part of the problem. Allan was an elected member of the AOC board. He has every right to express his opinion in the minutes of the board. If he feels the board minutes are not an accurate account of the board meeting, he has every right to not approve those minutes. I have not seen any report that this ever occurred.

However once the board makes a decision, he has a fiduciary responsibility to the membership as a whole to support that decision if it was a legal use of their power. Just because a board member disagrees with a decision of the board, their passion does not grant them license to encourage third-party legal challenges to that decision. Doing so violates their fiduciary responsibility they incur as a member of the board. If he passionately felt that decision was improper, at that point he should have resigned in protest. Then he could have freely opposed that decision. It was a conflict for him to remain on the board while encouraging efforts to challenge the decision of the board.

This is a fundamental distinction between this situation and every other owner crusade on TUG - most of which I support.

 

[SueDonJ]

I disagree, I see your post as an attack on Sue's ethics. No one is going to post if they have no interest at all. Had you pointed out that it COULD affect her position, she could have responded but you stated emphatically that that was her motive, implying her only or main motive I have interest simply due it it being Marriott. While I don't own Marriott stock, I have a number of Marriott weeks. A quote that I think sums it up is that "the middle is to the right of the left".

Dean, I sort of understood where Modo was coming from, but still appreciate that you're pointing out an important distinction here in my defense. Thanks. I'll add to it to say that I'm only very recently a piddling shareholder, so it can't be used as a motive for Modo to dismiss everything I've contributed to this thread. (And if anybody must know, it was the tanked economy that convinced me to put a few bucks into what I consider two strong companies in the hospitality industry - Marriott and Disney - in the hope that I'll make a few more when the economy rebounds.)

And Modo, my shareholder status really does mean next to nothing as far as my understanding of Marriott's actions throughout this situation. Except for a hope that they make smart business decisions, I'm far more invested in how this will all impact MVCI and its owners than the parent company.

As I've said before, there is no real measure to determine if you get what you want in transparency unless time dictates another similar event to compare. As for soliciting, I would not expect Marriott to allow any and even if technically legal, I would expect them to attempt to stop it. Just like they should not allow a magazine with a negative add to be distributed.

If MAOC's governing docs contain a solicitation provision similar to SurfWatch's, solicitation is allowed if written permission is obtained. Is it possible that the Aruban government and the resort industry have reached a mutual agreement to allow certain solicitations within the resorts, knowing that tourism provides the most jobs to Arubans? I think that's a possibility, and it could explain why Marriott selectively applies the provision.

 

[SueDonJ]

The conversation was more of owner to owner with concern that a lot of information is being kept from the owners for obvious reasons.No mention of legal action was mentioned.
Tug was suggested as a source of information.
I did not take sides completely.
I researched on my own by going on Aruba history sites,talking to owners,talking to OC staff,reading TUG and other sites.
I have to commend the board member in allowing me to research on my own before coming to any conclusion.

I see both sides.I have always marched to the beat of a different drum. So having to uphold to bylaws to the nth degree where one could be blinded as to the possibility of them being obstructive to the seeking of truth goes against my grain.

I would love to see every owner with the information the group has along with that of MVCI and the BOD.

As one can see from the voter turn out,the status quo probably will not change but the opportunity was given to every owner to appreciate that their co-owners have tried to share a concern that affects them.

There is one obvious avenue still open to the "concerned owners" group to get whatever information they're holding distributed to the entire MAOC ownership, and it's the one that was suggested to Mark which appears to be the reason he began this thread.

Challenge Marriott in a court proceeding.

It's as simple as that. IF whatever information you're holding is as damaging as you contend, if it's something that would convince every MAOC owner to rightfully demand concessions from Marriott as you allege, then get it out in the open in the most public way possible. Hire a competent attorney to organize and act on the owners' behalf, and force Marriott to respond.