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

[qlaval]

Is it not 66.67% for a quorum, and then just a majority of those shares present at that meeting.

And if quorum is not achieved, the meeting is postposted for up to 60 days. In the second meeting only a majority of the shares present is required.

Would appear that it is structured to provide provisions to change the Articles even with a large segment of non-participating owners. As you normally see in an HOA.

You're right and I stand corrected.

 

[DBerg]

Outraged

This morning I checked my email and as an Aruba Ocean Club owner I am outraged at this owner Mark Silverstein who also claims to be an owner and who used my address illegally and without permission to send the following message:

If this is a duplicate please accept my apologizes.

PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO ALL. JUST RESPOND TO ME.

I got your email from Allan Cohen. As an owner at the Ocean Club, like you, I am quite upset about what has taken place. I was at the owners meeting in October and was very disappointed to hear our board be Marriott puppets. By now we have all gotten our bills for the fees and assessments. We need people on the board who will force Marriott to step up and be responsible for the sub par building they sold us. A 1 bedroom at the Ocean Club is not more costly than a 2 bedroom in the Surf Club.

There is a lot of information posted on the Time share users group website:http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82564

We are in the process of gaining enough units to call a special meeting of the board to change some of the bylaws so that they are more owner friendly and drive more transparency and if necessary recall some of the members of the board. We would of course look to keep Allan on the board.

Please send me the number of units you have so I can add you to the list. Also please pass this on to any other owners whom you know. It is important that we as many owners possible on board.

Mark Silverstein

This is an outrage. I once sent an email to Allan Cohen and now to see that he gave my personal information out to another owner is totally irresponsible. After reading the email and then being led to this site I had to spend nearly an entire day to understand how to send this message to other owners. I have been an owner for many years and am retired; I do not know Allan Cohen or Mark Silverstein (apparently marksue after reading these messages on this internet website) and I believe they should formally apologize to all owners for breaking a trust of privacy. I have now sent both of them emails and am waiting on thier answer before I take further action against these two individuals. I and my wife am so angry about this invasion of privacy I have tried sending emails to Marriott to find out how to make them stop as it is apparent they have their own personal agendas. I want them removed from our ownership group immediately and I will seek how to have other owners expelled. I have enjoyed my timeshare for many years and mind my own business - I DO NOT APPRECIATE ANYONE INVADING MY PRIVACY RIGHTS AS A US CITIZEN. What they are trying to do with my money and my resort is an outrage - Marriott must do something immediately to make these two people stop using mine and other owners personal information!!

 

[dioxide45]

D.Berg, You received what I would amount to spam. It was unsolicited but it doesn't appear that they are using you as an owner to add to the list unless you respond.

 

[marksue]

It is quite funny that you said you sent an email to Allan Cohen, but do not know Allan Cohen. Why would you send an email to someone you do not know. As an owner you had to know he was the president of the board, why else would you send him an email. I got an email from this person and his email address is not an email address that i know or i have ever sent an email. I have a list of anyone I send emails, and his email address was a bogus email.

 

[bergdavid]

[Message deleted. Please read the "Posting Rules" for this BBS, especially the "Be Courteous" section. before posting again. (See "PostingRules" on the above blue bar.)

You can post your personal opinions about the matters associated with the topic of this thread, but you may not attack another poster. Doing so again will likely get you banned from posting here. Also note that there could well be more than one "David Berg". Dave M, BBS Moderator]

 

[Dave M]

It is quite funny that you said you sent an email to Allan Cohen, but do not know Allan Cohen. Why would you send an email to someone you do not know.

I don't know about you, but I have sent a significant number of e-mail messages with questions and/or requests to timeshare board members, general managers, rooms control people and others that I have never met. Certainly in the timeshare world, that's not at all unusual. I also send messages to my Marriott Vacation Ownership Advisor, but I have never met her.

Why does that seem "quite funny"?

 

[Luckybee]

I don't know about you, but I have sent a significant number of e-mail messages with questions and/or requests to timeshare board members, general managers, rooms control people and others that I have never met. Certainly in the timeshare world, that's not at all unusual. I also send messages to my Marriott Vacation Ownership Advisor, but I have never met her.

Why does that seem "quite funny"?

I think the distiction is in the word "know"...you're both right...the difference is in how you interpreted d Bergs comment( at least on an objective reading . I think what D Berg was trying to say is that he didnt "personally" know Allen Cohen which is what you got out of it Dave, whereas it could also have been interpreted that he didnt know who he was, which is what I think Mark took from it, which would have made it rather strange. (feel free to correct me if Im wrong )...I love interpreting internet speak...lol

On a different note though Im more curious about this post if Mark did not in fact send this individual an email. I do know this is not the same one I received from him. Perhaps he did but if so why would anyone be "outraged" at getting an email that only "invites" them to send their info ? If you didnt agree wouldnt you simply ignore it? 99.9999% of the population email addresses matched by name are available somewhere on the internet ...Email addresses are not exactly a closely guarded secret. How many times a day does everyone get spam inviting one to purchase this or join that, at least everyone with an email address, do you get outraged each time?....hmmmm

 

[qlaval]

I for one think that the way Marriott pushed aside of our elected President is more outrageous then receiving that email...

 

[ecwinch]

MarkSue

Luckybee - like you I am curious and would like MarkSue to respond to the claims that DBerg raises:

- That you have been provided e-mail addresses of owners by Allan Cohen?

- That you have contacted those owners by e-mail to support your initiatives?

- That you are the author of the e-mail in question aka Mark Silverstein?

And I am sorry ... your response did not make sense to me...

Timeos2 - Have to agree with comments. The first smell test this action will have to endure is if a law firm is willing to take this on a contigency basis. If they are only willing to take it on a time and materials basis, then one has to wonder about the relative merits of the case, and who would fund it.

 

[marksue]

I am not going to respond to a phoney email address. I know Dave Berg and he is part of the group working to make changes. Dave has been working behind the scenes writing and speaking to Marriott to no avail.

I do not know if this person is really named Dave Berg or not, as I am sure there is more than 1, there was never any email sent to him by me. I received 20 emails from him last night all with the same message all doing exactly what he is complaining I did, he is ccing: hundreds of owners.

 

[lovearuba]

marksue

Is he the same character that sent an email complaining that he didnt see a change in his maintenance fee. This character did a reply to all which means he did exactly what he is accussing you of. The one I'm referring to indicated he was a doctor?? but I had no idea what some of the message actually meant, he used a word I wasnt familar with and since he didnt seem to know what he was talking about I didn't bother looking it up but I did respond to him and sent him a copy of the recent Marriott owner letter posted to the owner website. This way if he read it he would understand the extent of increase in his bill.

 

[marksue]

I do not think it is him. I actually wrote back to him and we had a couple of good exchanges. He may not agree to our goal but that is ok

I have an idea where this Dberg one is coming from. I do not think it is an owner, but I could be wrong. David Berg who has worked with us has the same email address as this one except for the live.com. THe David Berg we know has been corresponding back and forth with the board, MVCI and Marriott.

I think someone pro marriott, may have gotten a hold of his email address, created a similiar address and sent an email out to discredit the effort. They are certainly entitled to it, but why would he not respond to the email I sent him last night asking how he got my email address since i never sent him an email.

 

[Dave M]

This character did a reply to all ....

If he did a "reply to all" and multiple people involved in this effort received responses, there should be no reason this should have happened at all. If an original e-mail message is crafted properly, a "reply to all" will go back only to the sender. How is that possible? Read on....

When someone sends an e-mail message to a large group of people, some of whom don't know each other, it's the sender's responsibility to protect those e-mail addresses from being seen by any of the recipients, unless all recipients already have the addresses of all others or have all agreed to release the privacy of their addresses. It's easy to do. The sender should simply put all of the addresses in the "bcc" address box, not in the "To" address box. By doing that, no recipient can see anyone else's address and (possibly) misuse it.

That's why, when you receive an e-mail from Marriott (or any other responsible business) that has obviously been sent simultaneously to thousands of others, you can't see any of the other recipient email addresses. Nor can you send a response to anyone else who received that same message.

Whether “DBerg” received an email directly from Mark or whether it was forwarded to him by someone else who received it doesn’t matter. In either case, he never should have had a chance to respond to anyone else except Mark and the person who sent it to him.

 

[lovearuba]

Thanks Dave

Thats great info, I never thought to do that but I certainly will keep it in mind if I ever need to send correspondence to a large group of folks.

 

[ecwinch]

MarkSue

Are you going to respond to the allegations raised, ie?

- That Allan Cohen provided you with e-mail addresses of Marriott owners that had contacted him in his offical capicity as BOD member/president of the Ocean Club...

I for one, I think that is fairly serious allegation, and if it is false, you should probably put it rest early.

 

[marksue]

As I said in my previous post I am not responding to a post by someone accusing me of having sent him an email who I never sent an email.

This is the last I will address that topic. My issue and the issue witht he hundreds of owners I ahve been speaking is the lack of transparency from the board. We just got a letter from the board that is onece again Marriott dictating what should be said. The information from that letter will be posted sometime today, with a response to the board.

 

[Resp]

Well, I received the letter and in a seperate mailing envelope a bill. I called the marriott telephone number to speak about the bill and the assessment in comparision to last years fees. The person had to "go find" the 2009 information on the AOC "upgrades" and communicated to me the need for refurbishment inorder to keep it "nice" down there.:whoopie: She told me about the 3 resorts in FLA that were not up to code and the large fees that the owners had to produce in order to get it up to fire code-lack of sprinkers. She commented they are going to do a nice job with the upgrades with new counter tops, flat screen TV's, beds and etc ......I commented that don't you think it is not wise to do those unnessary things during this economic downturn. She said that it would make our units nicer and there is no problem selling them. REALLY, I must have just fallin off the turnip truck. WOW the brass of them. anybody wanna buy my week. she said I should email the Corey(how much does he cost?) and the board at aocbod@blahblah.com I have a better idea, anybody have shoes to throw!!!!!! this is defintely not right, these fees are way out of line, for aruba timeshare. What recourse do you have? I also have a bridge for sale if your interested.

 

[Resp]

Ok you experts, has there ever been a marriott resort to reduce its annual maintainence fee, and which resort was it?

 

[Luckybee]

If he did a "reply to all" and multiple people involved in this effort received responses, there should be no reason this should have happened at all. If an original e-mail message is crafted properly, a "reply to all" will go back only to the sender. How is that possible? Read on....

When someone sends an e-mail message to a large group of people, some of whom don't know each other, it's the sender's responsibility to protect those e-mail addresses from being seen by any of the recipients, unless all recipients already have the addresses of all others or have all agreed to release the privacy of their addresses. It's easy to do. The sender should simply put all of the addresses in the "bcc" address box, not in the "To" address box. By doing that, no recipient can see anyone else's address and (possibly) misuse it.

That's why, when you receive an e-mail from Marriott (or any other responsible business) that has obviously been sent simultaneously to thousands of others, you can't see any of the other recipient email addresses. Nor can you send a response to anyone else who received that same message.

Whether “DBerg” received an email directly from Mark or whether it was forwarded to him by someone else who received it doesn’t matter. In either case, he never should have had a chance to respond to anyone else except Mark and the person who sent it to him.

I dont want to take this too far off topic but great tips Dave. I gotta tell you though, I have received mail from many repsonsible biz who have done this before. Got one last week from a large bank that had over 30 email addresses on it. I think it happens alot because most(myself included ) didnt know to do what you described...I will be more careful in the future with my emails

 

[FlyerBobcat]

reduced maintenance fees????

You can see that this has indeed happened in rare cases by checking under the Marriott section of the "Advice" section ("advice" is located in the red bar across the top of the page). Also listing the direct link here

Ok you experts, has there ever been a marriott resort to reduce its annual maintainence fee, and which resort was it?

 

[Dave M]

True, and at one resort (Custom House), the fees went down twice in succession - from 2002 to 2003 and from 2003 to 2004.

 

[ecwinch]

As I said in my previous post I am not responding to a post by someone accusing me of having sent him an email who I never sent an email.

This is the last I will address that topic. My issue and the issue witht he hundreds of owners I ahve been speaking is the lack of transparency from the board. We just got a letter from the board that is onece again Marriott dictating what should be said. The information from that letter will be posted sometime today, with a response to the board.

Kudos for your clever rationale for dodging the direct question. Clearly if Allan has provided you with the e-mail addresses as alleged, then his removal as President was justified, and he probably should be removed from the board also. It clearly would be a serious breach of conduct for him to release the e-mail addresses of owners that contacted him in his official capacity on the board.

 

[marksue]

FAQ's from the board

just read the FAQ's you sent you. I have to tell you I am quite disappointed in what I would consider half truths and lack of answers to the questions we have been asking.

1) You do not address completely why Allan was forced out prior to the owners meeting yet left him there to lead the meeting. While the board is the same the attitude of the board is not. Having Allan as president there was a great deal of transparency and he was wore than willing to speak with owners. Frank, you refuse to speak with owners. Why did you take on the president role if you did not want to deal with owners and represent the owners. We do not need Corey answering emails we need our board to answer the hard questions without going to Marriott for answers.

2) You have yet to explain how in January you the board said the building was defective, yet now you say it was not defective. The lack of openness and truth about the building is impacting your ability to have the support of the owners. Can you explain why we have had leaks in the building since the doors opened? Can you explain why the windows have leaked since inception?

When did Marriott's % rise to 48%, when as of a couple of weeks ago I was told by David Babich it was 43% or was the 48% a misprint. Congrats if you got them to pay 5% more, but they still owe us another 52%.

3) How can you say the board represents the owners when we hear nothing from the board when we send emails. All we hear is from Corey, who has to go to Marriott for answers. Decisions are being made which are not necessarily in the best interests given the state of the economy.

Why are you spending 5 million more, as I heard from David Babich, then Marriott suggested for the renovation.

You say you want to build a positive relationship with Marriott. What about doing what is best for the owners. I believe Marriott corporate is a good organization, but MVCI is not looking out for owners. Seems to me wanting to build a positive relationship means giving in to what they want, therefore not holding them responsible. If Allan fighting for the owners was not a positive relationship, good for him, at least we felt we had someone fighting for us. Why has MVCI purposely kept MI out of this issue.

4) Tell us why Marriott has not paid there fair share for space utilized in the Ocean club. Why has Marriott not reimbursed us for the damage caused by the leaks due to a defective roof and waterproofing. The damage by the storm was due to poor waterproofing of the building why isn't Marriott reimbursing us for that.

If Marriott paid us our rightful dues, then we wouldn't have the large increase or special assessments you are now piling on to us owners..

Why not leave it up to the owners to decide if they want to have the renovation now or delay it due to economic conditions. Oh i forgot you don't care about the owners. If doing the work now would save 750k, why has the assessment not gone down. Seems like there is double dipping somewhere.


This whole issue could be put to rest if we could get MI to talk with the owners. Also if this board really wants to increase transparency then make board meetings open to all owners if they are in Aruba or not. Want transparency, talk to us not using Marriott and their puppets to speak for you. There is no confidence in this board. In fact I believe it is a 3 person board, Steve, Frank and Melissa. Why do I say that? When i received this email today I called Allan and asked him about it and he had no idea what I was talking about. I asked if he read my email to the board and he told me he did not have access to the board email account. Why is that Frank? What are you afraid of, that he may tell us the truth.

I believe this board needs to look inside and if they can not represent the owners as they are supposed to, then please resign and let us put it board members that will fight for the owners. This FAQ has not addressed the owners questions. We want real answers not MVCI answers.

 

[Resp]

maintain fees

Thank you for the link, the key word you said is "Rare" and as you can see the operating expenses sometimes decreased but the overall expense to the so called "owner" actually increased, in some instances. In certain areas the reserves may be larger than others. I would logically think that ski locations take a beating from equipment related damage lugged thru resorts etc, as well as storm related concerns with island issues. But i don't see the overall effect on a financial depression that affects overall sales, i guess that is not logical and asking owners to cough up a greater than 30% increase and potentially maintain that level of operating expense is transparent! As property managers this makes no sense other than greed!!

I do believe the vast "owners" do not know of the current state to which they are being asked to obligatory contribute. I guess the vast "owners" have not lost their jobs or houses, health insurance, and other means to maintaining finiancial life. As property managers and BOD see it, I must be an idiot to think that TV's, furniture, lobby, carpeting, bathrooms, the cost of additional mangement staff, is appriopriate!!!!! I have enjoyed the AOC and other properties since 99 when I joined the marrtiott family. I feel very fortunate for the priceless things that have been part of my life and value them very much, AOC has contributed to that! But when the cost of "ownership" out strips rentals or resales, I can not find a convincing argument to comprehend. Although I realize some may differ, and good for them. I do at this point feel that the "owners" and the parent family has the BOD held hostage for money, I guess I will have to go back to the turnip patch, or be treated like an "owner mushroom" kept in the dark and fed ****!

I appreciate this thred and feel the comments appear warranted!

TY

 

[marksue]

Friday's board meeting

I just got this email from an owner who was on the board meeting call.

It is quite interesting. Shows you how much the board does not care about the owners:

As concerned owners at the Marriott Ocean Club, I wanted to provide you
with information on what transpired at the Board meeting this past
Friday. Based on that meeting, all owner concerns about this Board seem
well justified as they seem to have little interest in hearing from
Ocean Club owners regarding any of the issues and they are moving "full
steam " ahead despite the significant economic problems that many people
are facing and outstanding isues about possible Marriott liability for
some of the roof and other structural conditions at the Ocean Club.

I happened to attend the Board meeting merely by chance as it seemed to
be a well kept secret by the Board, On Thursday, December 18 I was at
the front desk at the Ocean Club in Aruba when I noticed a small tent
card partially hidden at the end of the desk noting the Board meeting
for Tuesday, December 17 at 3PM. Upon inquiry of OceanClub management, I
learned that it was actually sceduled for 4PM on Friday, December 19 and
was later told it was really at 3PM. One would think that notice of a
Board meeting would be prominently and accurately displayed to owners.

The meeting was attended in person by a number of Ocean Club Marriott
staff including Corey Guest, the General Manager of AOC, some of his
staff including the CFO, the General Manager of the Marriott Resort on
Aruba (Ocean Club, Surf Club and hotel) and by telephone a number of
MVCI representatives and the AOC Board. All of the Board members phoned
in to the meeting which was chaired by Frank Knox, the newly installed
President, who finally surfaced although apparently does not like to
respond to owner Emails.

Most of the Board meeting discussion focused on the planned
refurbishments and renovations with Board member, Steve Richards
discussing how he had been able to cut some of the proposed renovations,
saving around a million dollars, before he added some back in to the
mix. It was noted that a potential problem with having assessments paid
in two years rather than all at once was that there would not be
sufficient money to pay for it all and costs could increase.
Apparently, Marriott will be helping in bridging this concern but the
discussion was not totally clear on the specifics. Projected
expenditures for renovations for 2009 are 13 million and for 2010 1.2 to
1.3 million.

Allan Cohen, former President of the AOC owner's Association, spoke of
the need for some renovations but noted that considering the sizable
increase in maintenance and reserve fees as well as the continuing
significant economic problems that most are feeling, the Board should
poll the owners on whether they support all of these
renovations/assessments at the present time. Allan made a motion to
this effect and since no one else spoke up, I asked to be heard. Knox,
referring to me as Mr. Berg, initially sought to disallow my comments,
but when I reminded him of my right as an owner which was confirmed by
Corey Guest's reading of the owner documents, he relented telling me I
had "2 minutes". Reminding Knox that I was Mr. Berkowitz and not Mr.
Berg(he seemed to have a "Mr. Berg" on his mind,) I reiterated Allan's
concerns and also noted that both Marriott and this Board had
credibility problems with owners as a result of their handling of the
roof and other structural issues and the lack of Board responses to
owner Emails and concerns. I further noted that the significant
increases in maintenance and reserve fees together with the planned
assessments could adversely effect many owners considering the
troublesome economic conditions worldwide and, therefore, it was very
important that on this issue the Board be transparent and submit this
matter to the owners for a vote. Led by Frank Knox, the Board voted
against this motion, with no one even offering a second. No one spoke up
or expressed any concern for the owners other than Allan and myself.

Another issue raised by Board member, Melissa Pericolosi, was to have
non owners e.g. renters or those who "trade in" pay a utility surcharge.
Utility costs were projected to rise significantly under the recently
approved budget for Aruba. Marriott spoke against this motion arguing
that it would violate its agreement with Interval International. Allan
Cohen asked that Board legal counsel review whether there were any
issues to prevent such a surcharge and again led by Knox, there was no
support for such a referral to legal counsel. Even Pericolosi, who first
raised it had no interest in pursuing a further legal evaluation.

Prior to adjourning the meeting, Board member Richards said that in the
interest of fair balance (I guess to my earlier comments of concern), he
needed to note that he had heard from owners about the need for
renovations. After the meeting Corey Guest mentioned to me that he
passes on to Richard any owner comments on conditions of the villas on a
regular basis and that was what he was referring to in his comments.

Happy to address any questions and I have no problem with these comments
being shared with any concerned owners. Regards, Ken