Legal proof the AOC Board and MVCI has lied to the owners
Dear Aruba Ocean Club Owners - I want to inform you that our numbers continue to grow as owners witness the actions of the AOC Board and Marriott's (MVCI) actions. The latest tactics at the Special Meeting and the threatening of the Aruba Today Newspaper from distributing on Marriott property unless our Aruba ad was removed is shocking. What is Mr. Marriott and MVCI official's afraid that we might find out by communicating with each other ?
I am forwarding you the formal response from the Concerned Owners Aruba Attorney David Kock which clearly provides proof that the Board and MVCI mislead owners and spent owner funds in excess of $100,000, all in an attempt to prevent owner to owner communications. We presented these comments at the Special Meeting, but were put down by MVCI's hired Parliamentarian and the Boards thru their two attorneys.
The Board and MVCI had stated to owners that they had been ordered by the Court to hold a special meeting to amend the By Laws. As you can see from the letter this was not true. The court did not require MVCI or the Board to hold a special meeting to amend the owner register. The proposed motion to open up member contact information to the general public was all MVCI and the Board's attempt to misrepresent our request as well as the Court's intention and order, this was used to scare owner's into voting it down and in that they were successful.
We had asked the Board and MVCI to prove that their statements are true - they cannot. They should be held responsible and repay the owners back for all the funds spent, then they may think twice before they waste any more funds. These tactics only make us more optimistic that the court will respond in our favor in May when the hearing is scheduled.
Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you
Allan S. Cohen
===============================================================
Mr Allan Cohen
datum: 8 februari 2010
betreft: memorandum
Dear sir,
As discussed previously I hereby send you an explanation of the verdict of September 9, 2009 due to uncertainties that have been manifested to you by other concerned owners.
Firstly I must indicate that we never contested the text of the articles of incorporation of the Cooperative Association. We did not claim that these articles should be amended in order to add the mailing and email addresses of all the members to the registry mentioned in the articles of incorporation. This registry as indicated in article 27 of the articles of incorporation is available to inspection to anyone, also non members.
We are of the opinion that the members do not have an interest in third parties accessing their mailing and email addresses. However the same does not apply when a member wants to be able to contact his/her co-members. Currently such a member can only communicate through the Board or Marriott, whereby he will have no guarantee that such communiques will always be passed on and/or not be screened. Furthermore such means of communication is not desirable when the content or purpose thereof pertains to issues related to Marriott and/or the Board.
It is not in the spirit of a cooperative association to limit in any way the communication between the members. This is the intention of the lawsuit, not to amend the articles of incorporation. Nothing in the law prohibits the association to make available only to its members the mailing and email addresses of all members.
The ruling of September 9, 2009 did not contain an order to the association to present to the members the option to amend the articles of incorporation. The judge indicated:
‘Plaintiff requests –easily said- the (email)addresses of his co-members so that he can inform them en eventually discuss with them about a possible claim of the AOC against Marriott. AOC indicates that this request must first be made on the yearly general members meeting. AOC is willing to put this theme on the agenda.
The court is of the opinion that the point of departure should be that conflicts within an association must first be resolved by means of the possibilities indicated by the articles of incorporation. In this case plaintiff is proceeding against the denial of the board of the association to grant him the actual addresses of the co-members. The general meeting of members can, as the highest entity within the association, pronounce itself hereupon. There are no fact or circumstances presented that would imply that de general meeting of members, of which the court assumes that on the basis of the articles of incorporation and the last held meeting will be held in March 2010, cannot be awaited.’
It must be clear that the court did not order the board to hold a meeting suggesting the amendment of the articles of incorporation. The court said that the request of the plaintiff –which is for HIM to get the information of his co-members- should firstly be presented to the general meeting of members. The board decided to present an amendment of the articles of incorporation which would make the mailing and email addresses available to anyone which would ask to look into the register. Not only did the board present something other than recommended –not ordered- by the court but the option chosen by the board scared many members as their private (mailing and email) information could be accessed.
In our opinion nothing in Aruba law opposes granting a member the mailing and email addresses of his co-members. AOC/Marriott makes such only possible by the amendment of the register mentioned in the articles of incorporation. However such is not a conditio sine qua non.
Hoogachtend,
mr David G. Kock
