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

[qlaval]

•June 2010 Meeting Minutes *NEW!

•June 2010 Meeting Minutes *NEW!

Marriott Vacation Club of Aruba Cooperative Association
Board Organizational Meeting
June 1, 2010
The Board of Directors of the Marriott Vacation Club of Aruba Cooperative Association held a meeting via conference call on Tuesday June 1, 2010.

Board Members present were:
Frank Knox, President, Stevan Richards, Vice President, Anthony Lifrieri, Board Officer, Mike Reilly, Board Officer.

Board Member(s) not present:
Melissa Pericolosi, Treasurer/Secretary

Present from Marriott Vacation Club® were:
Corey Guest, General Manager, and Gail Sahit, Executive Administrative Assistant.

CALL TO ORDER
The Board Meeting was called to order at 8.12 p.m. Eastern standard time.
ESTABLISHING QUORUM
With a majority of Board Members present, quorum was met.
APPOINTMENT OF RECORDING SECRETARY
The Board of Directors of the Marriott Vacation Club of Aruba Cooperative Association appointed Gail Sahit as Recording Secretary.
APROVAL OF AGENDA
The Board President Frank Knox requests a motion to approve the agenda.
Motion was made by Anthony Lifrieri to approve the agenda of June 1, 2010 and seconded by Steve Richards. With all in favor the motion was passed.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
After the last Annual Meeting there was no Organizational Meeting held immediately afterwards due to the fact that Board Officer Mike Reilly was not in attendance and consideration must be given to him to be present as a voting member of the Board and its organization of officers. And since no announcement could have been made at that time of the date and time of the Organizational Meeting, Frank Knox requests that a motion be made to waive the official notice of date for this meeting.

Motion was made by Anthony Lifrieri to waive the notice of the organizational meeting stated as such in Article 6.2. and seconded by Steve Richards. With all in favor the motion was passed.

NEW BUSINESS
For the organization of the Board of Directors the following motions were made:
Frank Knox nominates Steve Richards as Vice-President, which was seconded by Anthony Lifrieri. With all in favor the motion was unanimously carried.
Frank Knox nominates Melissa Pericolosi as Treasurer/Secretary, which was seconded by Mike Reilly. With all in favor the motion was unanimously carried.
Steve Richards nominates Frank Knox as Board President, which was seconded by Anthony Lifrieri. With all in favor the motion was unanimously carried.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8.16 p.m. Eastern standard time.
Submitted by: Gail Sahit-Mahabeer
Approved by: Frank Knox

These minutes are subject to approval at the next Board Meeting

 

[Dean]

Where's the Parliamentarian? The Pres should not be nominating and generally should only vote in tiebreaker situations. I don't see it would have made any difference but they should still follow the rules of order.

 

[SueDonJ]

I'm confused, Dean. These are minutes from the board's 6/1 telephone meeting, not a Special Meeting or the 5/21 Annual Meeting. I wouldn't think that the Parliamentarian is necessary to keep order at a meeting where only the board members are present. Also, is it written in the documents that the BOD President can't make organizational nominations?

{edited to add} Just checked arubaoceanclub.com for the more recent meeting minutes - the Parliamentarian wasn't present either for the 5/3/10 BOD telephone meeting, and the minutes from the 5/21/10 Annual Meeting are not up. Interesting, VALID reasons for not taping meetings is in the 5/3 link, if anyone wants to know the actual reasons why it's not allowed.

 

[Dean]

I'm confused, Dean. These are minutes from the board's 6/1 telephone meeting, not a Special Meeting or the 5/21 Annual Meeting. I wouldn't think that the Parliamentarian is necessary to keep order at a meeting where only the board members are present. Also, is it written in the documents that the BOD President can't make organizational nominations?

{edited to add} Just checked arubaoceanclub.com for the more recent meeting minutes - the Parliamentarian wasn't present either for the 5/3/10 BOD telephone meeting, and the minutes from the 5/21/10 Annual Meeting are not up. Interesting, VALID reasons for not taping meetings is in the 5/3 link, if anyone wants to know the actual reasons why it's not allowed.

I was mostly joking. I assumed a parliamentarian wasn't present but was pointing out the breach of the normal process for such meetings. The Pres should have just gone ahead and nominated himself given the process taken.

 

[SueDonJ]

Isn't it funny (no pun intended) how in this thread it's more difficult to "read" the slight haha's than in any other thread? My first thought was, "Dean can't be serious here about the parliamentarian, can he?" So I had to ask.

But your thing about the BOD pres not participating in nominations, that really did confuse me. Are they not allowed?

 

[lovearuba]

Board Meetings

Isnt the whole purpose of meeting notes from a board meeting intended to document what actually happened in the meeting or is it really to only capture what the board wants to release.

As a follow up, since the annual meeting included owners, shouldn't all the motions made in the meeting be documented along with the results of the motion. Whether or not you believe in the concerned owners group, one would think you would agree that meeting notes should actually capture what happened in the meeting.

 

[jonnat]

Ocean Club Has Never Looked Better

I have been following this thread for a couple of years now and have chosen only to reply after coming back to the resort this year after two years away. First, the group called the "Concerned Owners" is a bunch of whining windbags. This place looks amazing. The new look in the villas, the furniture, the bathrooms, the halls, and the lobby are huge upgrades to what was here before. I liked the old resort but it was showing its age for sure. The staff here seem to go out of their way to make your experience great.

As for the extra fees I as well have had to pay for this renovation. Yes, it was a big hit for us but it was well worth it! It is amazing to me the very people who were running our association previously are the people who are the most critical of everything that is being done here. What is also amazing that our very own former Board President is leading the charge when indeed one could place a lot of blame on him and the former BOD for not watching our finances better? They are the ones who are supposed to watch reserves, anticipate costs, and then execute items on behalf of the organization. I bought into this property because of the MARRIOTT name and nothing else. They have a standard which is known worldwide and they maintain their timeshare properties consistently across their name brand.

Furthermore, the additional money that is being spent for unnecessary litigation is infuriating. Face it, we don't want our private information going out to a bunch of people who in my opinion have not proven anything to us besides that they are capable of wasting our money on this stupid court case. However, they are the same people who accuse Marriott of wasting our Association money. Doesn't that sound like a hypocritical way of thinking?

Yes, we will never agree on everything. Some people may not like the paint color, or the new curtains, etc but Corey and the BOD is making a difference on the property and bringing it back up to the standards it should have always been maintained. KUDOS to our BOD for doing the right thing for our investment even with the extra cost which we ALL HAVE HAD TO BEAR!

 

[billymach4]

Welcome to Tug!

You make a good point here. But some might be very suspicious of your motive as you only have one post.

But we do need a distraction from the other issues looming here.

 

[jonnat]

Thanks Billy. I have chosen to not say anything but there is no motive or hidden agenda. Just speaking my mind about how I see things. BTW I am am member the Concerned Owners board too so I am looking at both sides of the issue and then form my opinion based on the facts.

Welcome to Tug!

You make a good point here. But some might be very suspicious of your motive as you only have one post.

But we do need a distraction from the other issues looming here.

 

[lovearuba]

other motive

Thanks Billy. I have chosen to not say anything but there is no motive or hidden agenda. Just speaking my mind about how I see things. BTW I am am member the Concerned Owners board too so I am looking at both sides of the issue and then form my opinion based on the facts.

I would say you have another motive since you would have to agree to supporting the concerned owners cause to register for the site. Guess you think nothing of what you sign up for.

Why don't you get into the point discussion and defend Marriott there, they really need a lot of help. :whoopie:

 

[Luckybee]

Lets see....nothing posted for 3 weeks then all of a sudden out of the blue a post from a first time poster that seems to be intended to stir the pot..perhaps intended as a distraction to get the discussions off the points system and on to another contentious issue..hmmmm....nope nothing suspicious there at all...I believe that almost as much as I believe that my weeks wont be affected by the new Marriott system

 

[rickxylon]

Sounds like lovearuba can't stand someone disagreeing with him/her.

 

[jonnat]

Ha Ha Ha Ha

Rickx:

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. I love how a newbee can't post their thoughts and observations. Maybe I should have said, "Based on taking two years to form an educated opinion I believe that Marriott is a rip off. "

Then I would be getting praises from all of the windbags.....

Agree to disagree life is a lot better when you can.....

Sounds like lovearuba can't stand someone disagreeing with him/her.

 

[jonnat]

Concerned Owners A Rip Off

Now I am laughing as because I finally posted something that conflicted with the Concerned Owners my log in has been removed from their page. How childish and ridiculous.

 

[ecwinch]

Just confirming what we felt would happen all along with the private site. It is not a forum for the free discussion of the issues or the exchange of diverse viewpoints. Toe the party line or hit the door.

The "leadership" knows what is best for you. Just like they did when they were on the BoD. Other than that, they are only interested in your support, not your viewpoint.

 

[lovearuba]

really

Just confirming what we felt would happen all along with the private site. It is not a forum for the free discussion of the issues or the exchange of diverse viewpoints. Toe the party line or hit the door.

The "leadership" knows what is best for you. Just like they did when they were on the BoD. Other than that, they are only interested in your support, not your viewpoint.

So let me understand this, the poster just insulted every member of the group and stated that he did not want them to have his private information. So we can either let him continue to be a member of a group he does not support and allow him to insult everyone in the group and we can keep his private information or we can remove him from the site for breaking the rules of participation. Removing him is appropriate and it also protects his private information because once he is deleted, he is deleted.

Now if he was removed from Tug your view would be different. I just dont think you can look at both sides of this.

 

[Dean]

So let me understand this, the poster just insulted every member of the group and stated that he did not want them to have his private information. So we can either let him continue to be a member of a group he does not support and allow him to insult everyone in the group and we can keep his private information or we can remove him from the site for breaking the rules of participation. Removing him is appropriate and it also protects his private information because once he is deleted, he is deleted.

Now if he was removed from Tug your view would be different. I just dont think you can look at both sides of this.

Other than coming to a different conclusion and saying so and rightfully placing responsbility on a former President of the BOD (for good or bad), I don't see anything insulting.

I would say you have another motive since you would have to agree to supporting the concerned owners cause to register for the site. Guess you think nothing of what you sign up for.

Why don't you get into the point discussion and defend Marriott there, they really need a lot of help. :whoopie:

Interesting admission of the agenda involved. This is exactly the point some of us were addressing when this came around the first time, pretty closed minded I'd say to have a my way or the highway approach. It's especially interesting for a group asking for transparency, whatever that really is in this situation.

 

[modoaruba]

This is a tough one.

Anyone can start a group.Rules can be set mandating how an outsider can gain entry to this group.It need not be a democracy nor follow politcal correctness.
But if one who does gain entry decides to air their dirty laundry in the name of the group or insult by calling the group members names,then the group would have no choice but to severe ties.Why belong?
I am sure that the concerned owners group here would accept open mindedly any discussion that would have opposing view points on their site without the threat of excommunication of its members.
If the poster called the other TUG members "windbags" or other derogatory names om this site,how long before the moderator corrects them?
As far as transparancy,it's not the group that HAS to be,it's Marriott that the group wants transparent.The owners are the boss that hired Marriott to take care of their vacations.For the monies that are being paid to Marriott,the group wants transparancy and a say so to policies that affect them.The bosses do not need to be transparant.
Take what I just posted without taking sides.I based it on what I define a group to be and how a situation is handled.

 

[lovearuba]

registration

This is a tough one.

Anyone can start a group.Rules can be set mandating how an outsider can gain entry to this group.It need not be a democracy nor follow politcal correctness.
But if one who does gain entry decides to air their dirty laundry in the name of the group or insult by calling the group members names,then the group would have no choice but to severe ties.Why belong?
I am sure that the concerned owners group here would accept open mindedly any discussion that would have opposing view points on their site without the threat of excommunication of its members.
If the poster called the other TUG members "windbags" or other derogatory names om this site,how long before the moderator corrects them?
As far as transparancy,it's not the group that HAS to be,it's Marriott that the group wants transparent.The owners are the boss that hired Marriott to take care of their vacations.For the monies that are being paid to Marriott,the group wants transparancy and a say so to policies that affect them.The bosses do not need to be transparant.
Take what I just posted without taking sides.I based it on what I define a group to be and how a situation is handled.

If the poster wants to retract the nasty remarks about the other members of the team and treat people with respect he is welcome to rejoin. I still dont know why he would want to given that he does not believe in the cause of the group. That is not the reason the poster was removed. Its that simple, the group is for concerned members only. It clearly says that.

 

[Dean]

This is a tough one.

Anyone can start a group.Rules can be set mandating how an outsider can gain entry to this group.It need not be a democracy nor follow politcal correctness.
But if one who does gain entry decides to air their dirty laundry in the name of the group or insult by calling the group members names,then the group would have no choice but to severe ties.Why belong?
I am sure that the concerned owners group here would accept open mindedly any discussion that would have opposing view points on their site without the threat of excommunication of its members.
If the poster called the other TUG members "windbags" or other derogatory names om this site,how long before the moderator corrects them?
As far as transparancy,it's not the group that HAS to be,it's Marriott that the group wants transparent.The owners are the boss that hired Marriott to take care of their vacations.For the monies that are being paid to Marriott,the group wants transparancy and a say so to policies that affect them.The bosses do not need to be transparant.
Take what I just posted without taking sides.I based it on what I define a group to be and how a situation is handled.

I would agree with the right but disagree with the reasonableness of such an action, esp when it comes to those that share a common goal but different opinions of how to get there or who's right/wrong on the 2 sides. While I realize the group is asking for one sided transparency, I am pointing out the hypocracy. Not to those of us who do not own there (though we have have a vested interest to a degree) but more to those who do own there but who's concerns might be different. I realize we don't have the specifics of the post in question but removal from the site based on one post related to the subject matter seems to be an unreasonable approach as a first step. As it relates to TUG, I am certain that this would have not happened on TUG for a timeshare related post based on one post. I'd think that phishing and non related advertising posts from obviously inappropriate sources are about the extent of the type of posts that would garner this type of removal.

 

[SueDonJ]

If the poster wants to retract the nasty remarks about the other members of the team and treat people with respect he is welcome to rejoin. I still dont know why he would want to given that he does not believe in the cause of the group. That is not the reason the poster was removed. Its that simple, the group is for concerned members only. It clearly says that.

It does. But you can't be surprised to learn that MAOC owners who do not agree with the group's concerns have joined the site and quietly watched whatever is happening there from the sidelines? That's exactly what I would expect, considering all of the insinuations made throughout this thread (and wherever else your site has been touted) that an owner can "get the real story" only by registering/joining the site.

I know, I know, you're in control over there and you can add/remove access for whomever you please if they're not playing correctly. What jonnat has now proven, though, is that if you're relying on the number of owners registered to your site as the definitive number of owners who support the efforts of the "concerned owners" group, perhaps you should rethink that.

Do you remember when your site was established and some of us cautioned that in the (unlikely?) event Marriott was to take action against self-proclaimed members of the "concerned owners" group, that the disclaimer on your site of anyone signing up being in agreement with the cause could constitute inclusion into the group? Well, you denied that was the purpose for the disclaimer. Now here with jonnat you're saying s/he shouldn't have joined because s/he isn't in agreement with the group's efforts. I'm confused.

 

[jonnat]

Update on Where I Stand

After two emails to Allan and responses and an offer to chat with him I will not speak to him any further until my account has been reinstated on Concerned Owners Website. As of today I really do not support their effort as they promote the same tactics that they have accused Marriott of doing to all the owners. I have stated this directly to Allan whose name is plastered on the site as the person to contact. I have also been told by Allan that their webmaster is independent to the site and he would look into what happened. No response on what happened. It is all very suspicious to say the least. As for being insulting what I have found insulting is the amount of accusations that have been slung across this board that have questionable truth to them and are posted as truth. I have nothing to apologize for and will not apologize for anything I post here as I would say the exact same thing in person as I post here. As I stated before I did not hold an opinion about this issue but was very interested on seeing both sides of the issue before I formed my opinion. My opinion is based on TWO YEARS of seeing both sides and my final visit to an amazing resort. Also, the childish response from a group of people who I can now see are more manipulative and unreasonable that the corporate domination of "Marriott" they claim to be victims of.
What is most infuriating to me is that my fees are being used to fight litigation that can't be resolved and quite honestly has become petty if anything else. We voted (The Association), I voted (I don't want my information disclosed to third parties or other owners), and it is time to move on. I am glad that I posted here what I posted and that some people do not feel happy about it. What I have accomplished is another dialogue that gets both sides thinking about their actions and hopefully will lead to closure on this thread and some of the tactics that have been going on for way too long.

 

[jonnat]

??????????????

By the way I find it interesting how you seem to be insulting from what I posted on the Concerned Owners Site. Being that I don't have access to that site anymore would anyone be brave enough to post on here what I actually posted on the website. It talked about how nice the resort looks now and nothing else. Nothing nasty or insulting to the group on the group site.

NEXT.........................

If the poster wants to retract the nasty remarks about the other members of the team and treat people with respect he is welcome to rejoin. I still dont know why he would want to given that he does not believe in the cause of the group. That is not the reason the poster was removed. Its that simple, the group is for concerned members only. It clearly says that.

 

[Luckybee]

Somehow jonnat I doubt you've accomplished anything

And if you werent sure what the webmaster of the concerned owners group meant as insulting....well hmmmm.....calling the members of the concerned owners group "a bunch of whining windbags" would likely be considered in most quarters as an insult...lol

And obviously you wouldnt want to be a member where all the members are just that would you? So whats the problem....voila....you're not a member

 

[lovearuba]

Hi Sue

It does. But you can't be surprised to learn that MAOC owners who do not agree with the group's concerns have joined the site and quietly watched whatever is happening there from the sidelines? That's exactly what I would expect, considering all of the insinuations made throughout this thread (and wherever else your site has been touted) that an owner can "get the real story" only by registering/joining the site.

I know, I know, you're in control over there and you can add/remove access for whomever you please if they're not playing correctly. What jonnat has now proven, though, is that if you're relying on the number of owners registered to your site as the definitive number of owners who support the efforts of the "concerned owners" group, perhaps you should rethink that.

Do you remember when your site was established and some of us cautioned that in the (unlikely?) event Marriott was to take action against self-proclaimed members of the "concerned owners" group, that the disclaimer on your site of anyone signing up being in agreement with the cause could constitute inclusion into the group? Well, you denied that was the purpose for the disclaimer. Now here with jonnat you're saying s/he shouldn't have joined because s/he isn't in agreement with the group's efforts. I'm confused.

Hi Sue
I certainly understand that owners would want to register to get the information and we are fine with that if they are an owner. If they decide afterwards that they dont agree and want to remove themselves thats okay too. Whats not okay is to join the site, come here and call everyone a whining windbag and still remain active on the site. I am sure if I insulted everyone on tug my account would be suspended. Its that simple.