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

[ecwinch]

Marksue,

I respect that you believe passionately in your cause, and believe in what you are saying.

But, in the absence of credible first hand accounts and hard evidence, it really is just hearsay, rhetoric, and innuendo.

And again, your response ignores the point that there was no second - so no vote. Go back and read this Post, on why having the owners vote on the refurbishment would have been a bad idea. In short, it sets a precedent, is expensive, undermines the authority of the BOD, and does not obviate the need for the refurbishment. If I was on the BOD, I would have made the exact same decision.

You present your slanted version of events, and I will do my best to provide some balance. I have no reason to be inaccurate, for there is nothing for me to gain.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Postscript: If owners do not want to post here for fear of Marriott reprisal, have they really thought this whole thing through?

 

[lovearuba]

repurcussions

I have also heard from owners of their experiences with being at the meetings referenced here and their experience is exactly as Marksue represents them to be. I have emails from them explaining their frustration. Marksue has nothing to prove. You can question anything you want as we know you will and I encourage those that seek change to continue to support this cause.

You can call me whatever you like and you can insinuate that Mark is making this up but it will not change the purpose of this thread.

 

[ecwinch]

I have also heard from owners of their experiences with being at the meetings referenced here and their experience is exactly as Marksue represents them to be. I have emails from them explaining their frustration. Marksue has nothing to prove. You can question anything you want as we know you will and I encourage those that seek change to continue to support this cause.

You can call me whatever you like and you can insinuate that Mark is making this up but it will not change the purpose of this thread.

While passionate, this really does not introduce any new facts or evidence to the discussion.

I am not insinuating that Mark is making this up. But his passion clearly is coloring his view of the events, and could color the accounts he provides.

I am not doubting that some owners are frustrated. Owners are always frustrated by increased m/f and special assessments. No one is disputing those facts and the angst of the owners.

I am not advocating that you stop trying. I am advocating that you moderate your position. Extreme positions are rarely well received by the target of those acts.

 

[marksue]

Call for the Special Board Meeting

THe request for the special meeting to recall the current board has been delivered and received.

The following was sent to Corey at the Ocean Club:

Aruba Ocean Club Concerned Owners


April 7, 2009

Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club
c/o Corey Guest – General Manager
Board of Directors
101 L.G. Smith Blvd
Palm Beach, Aruba

Dear Aruba Ocean Club Board of Directors:

The following request is on behalf of many Concerned Voting Members of the Marriott Vacation Club of Aruba Cooperative Association. We the owners representing over 10% of the use periods owned, hereby request a duly convened special meeting of Members, pursuant to Article VI section 6.3 Removal of the Directors: The purpose of the meeting is to recall the following members of the Board of Directors.

President: Frank Knox
Vice President: Steve Richards
Treasurer: Melissa Pericolosi

Article VI section 6.3 states that:

The calling of a special meeting of Members to recall members of the Board of Directors may be called by Voting Members representing not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes. Notice of such meeting shall be given fourteen (14) days prior to such meeting and shall state the purpose of the meeting...

With notice of the Special Meeting a ballot and proxy must be prepared to have Members vote on the removal of the Officers of the Association. As stated a Director can be removed "with or without cause".

Please forward all documents prepared for the calling of the Special Meeting and we will prepare a statement to all Members for the requested action, to be included in the mailing per the By Laws.

The separate attached list represents over 10% of the voting members whose local address is The Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club, 101 L.G. Smith Blvd, Palm Beach, Aruba, and contains owners name and number of use periods owned.


Thank you:

 

[ecwinch]

Mark,

Congratulations on your efforts to date.

If the recall is successful, are the vacancies filled by appointment by the remaining board members? This is fairly standard for vacancies.

If the recall is successful, will the only board members remaining be Allan and the MVCI representive?

Does the MVCI board representative have a vote in filling the vacancies?

Prior to the recall, can one of the seated BOD members resign and have their position filled by the board prior to the special election?

 

[marksue]

If the recall is successful, are the vacancies filled by appointment by the remaining board members? This is fairly standard for vacancies.

yes the remaining board members will replace the removed board members

If the recall is successful, will the only board members remaining be Allan and the MVCI representive?

Assuming the vote goes the way I would like yes that is what will be left.

Does the MVCI board representative have a vote in filling the vacancies?

If it goes to proxy, MVCI only has 1500 votes (i think that is hte number) so they will not ahve the necessary votes to influence the outcome.

Prior to the recall, can one of the seated BOD members resign and have their position filled by the board prior to the special election?

Yes, but any board member can be put up for recall

 

[tlwmkw]

You are well on your way to getting rid of the current board. That shows great perseverance- good job.

Again, I ask (and you haven't answered this when I have asked before) what exactly do you plan to do once you replace the current board? Obviously you want more transparency and that will be a good thing, but you need to have a plan beyond that. You need to start thinking how you will reduce costs (though that appears to be happening already to some extent- see the above posts about lower than expected costs). There needs to be more of a plan other than "I'm mad at the board so I will replace it"- if you have no plan to do anything differently then what have you really achieved (other than being more open about what is going on)? You did say before that you don't want to replace Marriott so you cannot do anything about the management fees but where will you cut costs? You don't want to ruin the resort by avoiding a maintenance and refurbishment. It will cost more later to refurbish if you let it go longer- plus it will anger owners that the resort is getting "tired" and maintenance is not being done. I really think you need to think about these issues.

 

[marksue]

Transparency and trust are the number 1 issues impacting the owners. Everything the board has done may be the right decision, but there has been no sharing with the owners except what Marriott wants you to hear. Yes our fees have gone up; yes our assessments are out of hand. The problem is there has been no financial prudence applied in creating the budget. There were decisions made that I do not believe had to be made. We want to look at the current expenses and see where we can save without reducing the quality of the resort

Owners have not been kept informed about decisions being made, instead we have been told this is what is happening. The building has been discussed a great deal and we will work to have Marriott step up and cover the out or pocket costs owners have laid out do to the defective building.

What needs to be done is to get Marriott to pay its fair share for the rental space. This will help to reduce overall costs. . Do we need 2 dedicated Marriott employees or should we have 1 and a shared resource. Until we have all the information to review I can't give you specifics.

We want owners to be fully aware and kept informed and they should be in position to give input.

 

[ecwinch]

MarkSue,

Maybe it is a point of order that I do not understand.

Typically when a vacancy occurs on a board, the remaining board members vote to appoint someone to fill the vacancy. So in this recall situation, what happens if the vote goes like you want, and all three members are recalled?

Do the vacant positions get filled by a vote of the remaining board members or does an another separate owners election occur to fill those vacancies?

If it is the former, the number of MVCI controlled proxies does not come into play. There would be two remaining board members (the MVCI rep and Allan), and it would seem that their vote might cancel each other out.

 

[Quilter]

There have been tactics in this thread which tweak my suspicion that what is being said isn't in the spirit of productive negotiating. Drama headlines "i.e.,. . .Owners Being Ripped Off. . ." and name calling i.e, "puppets".

From what I can tell, the current BOD and Marriott took drastic actions to stop a disintegrating situation that could have lead to costly and time consuming legal action. After regrouping they did communicate with owners in a letter last November. Now again, after what appears to be lots of work on their part, we have received another letter of communication and progress.

All of this without talk of legal action. I'm very glad the BOD isn't in a lawsuit with who-knows-what outcome.

Be careful of installing new BOD members with the mindset--threat first, demand second, negotiate last.

 

[timeos2]

It's not a gold min if it's even possible to get rent

What needs to be done is to get Marriott to pay its fair share for the rental space. This will help to reduce overall costs. . Do we need 2 dedicated Marriott employees or should we have 1 and a shared resource. Until we have all the information to review I can't give you specifics.

That is a great idea but there may be reasons - such as easements - that where included in the original documents granting use rights for sales areas that run from a few years to virtually forever. Those are not easily changed and may not even be negotiable. Or they may be using space for virtually nothing that they should pay for but, especially in the current slow down, the value of the rent isn't going to cut annual fees much. In any case worth lookig at but don't plan on any windfalls from leasing sales space.

 

[lovearuba]

A little change is better than no change

I am very optomistic that getting members on the board that support transparency is a needed and very positive change. No one has all the answers on how things will unfold but the actions taken will be well thought out.

No one expects to get all of the owner concerns addressed but we at least expect someone to listen to those concerns. If it turns out some things stay the same at least we had a say and are fully informed on why they cannot be changed. I'm very proud of Marksue and all the other owners who have supported these efforts.

 

[Quilter]

I am very optomistic that getting members on the board that support transparency is a needed and very positive change. No one has all the answers on how things will unfold but the actions taken will be well thought out.

No one expects to get all of the owner concerns addressed but we at least expect someone to listen to those concerns. If it turns out some things stay the same at least we had a say and are fully informed on why they cannot be changed. I'm very proud of Marksue and all the other owners who have supported these efforts.

Thinking, listening and posting minutes of meetings aren't enough to get items taken care of. What a good Board does is take action and do. From the most recent letter from Mr. Knox we currently have a Board that does take action. Their efforts are not being given the support here that they deserve.

 

[Retired to Travel]

Thinking, listening and posting minutes of meetings aren't enough to get items taken care of. What a good Board does is take action and do. From the most recent letter from Mr. Knox we currently have a Board that does take action. Their efforts are not being given the support here that they deserve.

As a very concerned owner who has followed this thread from the beginning, I agree with the above and with the advice of other cooler heads. We are in the process of voting on 3 BOD members. Let's give them a chance. Vote out Knox if you dislike him. But under MarkSue's dream agenda he would like to set up Allan Cohen to play Czar and appoint a new Board (where's that slate for us to review?)

I'm sure I am not the only owner who would resent having my vote cast in this irresponsible way. How do people on Mark's "10% list" REALLY feel about the way he is trying to use their names?

 

[ecwinch]

Does someone have a copy of the by-laws that they can share with me?

I am really interested in how the vacancies would be filled if the recall election is successful.

Unless there is a special election to fill the board, it would seem the remaining board members would vote to fill the vacancies.

The request for special meeting only covers the recall as I read it.

 

[Retired to Travel]

Quoted from Bylaws

Here it is from my docs dated May 1998 (please excuse any typos):

6.3 Removal of Directors: At any duly convened regular or special meeting, any one or more of the Directors other than Developer elected Directors may be removed, with or without cause, by the vote or agreement in writing of a majority of all the voting interests. Developer elected Directors may be removed only for good cause.

The calling of a special meeting of Members to recall members of the Board of Directors may be called by Voting Members representing not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes. Notice of such meeting shall be given fourteen (14) days prior to such meeting and shall state the purpose of the meeting. In the event that a majority of the Voting Members at a duly called and convened meeting vote to recall a Director, the directorship of the recalled Member shall be terminated effective immediately and the recalled Member shall turn over to the Board all records and property of the Association in his possession within five (5) full business days.

6.4 Vacancies on Board of Directors: If the office of any Director or Directors becomes vacant by reason of death, resignation, retirement, disqualification, removal from office or otherwise, a majority of the remaining Directors, although the remaining directors may constitute less than a quorum, at any regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors shall choose a successor or successors, who shall hold office for the balance of the unexpired term.

 

[SueDonJ]

... I am really interested in how the vacancies would be filled if the recall election is successful. ...

Eric, I'm not an owner at Aruba Ocean Club either, but everything in this thread interests me as an MVCI owner. It's worrisome how the actions at this resort will impact all of the other resorts, because as near as I can see the BOD at MOC has followed the same procedures as are in place at all of the other resorts.

I'm not understanding the transparency issue here - the elected BOD acted in their capacity with respect to property maintenance issues and notified the owners in the usual manner (or, at least, in the same manner that actions and notifications have occurred at the resorts which I own.)

Also, I posted earlier in this thread that this year's GM update from Barony Beach included a blurb about a new email address (MVCIBBCOB@vacationclub.com) to "communicate directly" with the BOD, which contrasts with previously releasing individual board members' email addresses. I'd like to know if this is a new trend with all MVCI properties, and if so, did the timing simply contribute to the fiasco at MOC or is the change a direct result of it?

I wouldn't be happy with the gigantic increase in fees at MOC either, if I was an owner, but the explanations of normal property maintenance, a lack of warranty coverage for the roof, insufficient reserve fees and increased island labor and utility/infrastructure costs make sense. Looking at it from the outside there really doesn't seem to be any fault due the BOD. I'm worried that MVCI-wide changes in policy/procedure (that are working at all of the other resorts) might be the fallout from this situation.

 

[timeos2]

Nothing is automatic or guaranteed

Here it is from my docs dated May 1998 (please excuse any typos):

6.3 Removal of Directors: At any duly convened regular or special meeting, any one or more of the Directors other than Developer elected Directors may be removed, with or without cause, by the vote or agreement in writing of a majority of all the voting interests. Developer elected Directors may be removed only for good cause.

So if any of the Directors are elected by Marriott controlled votes they cannot be recalled

The calling of a special meeting of Members to recall members of the Board of Directors may be called by Voting Members representing not less than ten percent (10%) of the total votes. Notice of such meeting shall be given fourteen (14) days prior to such meeting and shall state the purpose of the meeting. In the event that a majority of the Voting Members at a duly called and convened meeting vote to recall a Director, the directorship of the recalled Member shall be terminated effective immediately and the recalled Member shall turn over to the Board all records and property of the Association in his possession within five (5) full business days.

The meeting creates the vote but the members (owners) still have to vote - the simple success of the Call for Special Meeting does NOT mean the Directors are removed but that every owner gets to vote in person or by proxy. There is no guarantee that the majority will vote to remove the recalled Director(s).

6.4 Vacancies on Board of Directors: If the office of any Director or Directors becomes vacant by reason of death, resignation, retirement, disqualification, removal from office or otherwise, a majority of the remaining Directors, although the remaining directors may constitute less than a quorum, at any regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors shall choose a successor or successors, who shall hold office for the balance of the unexpired term.

If a Board member or members are voted off then the remaining ones get to pick the replacement. What makes anyone think they wouldn't pick others that agree with the existing Board? There is zero guarantee that the dissidents choices wold be picked even if the current members are voted out.

Quite an experience in the process but the outcome may not please those that started it. Or they may succeed and then find it hard to impossible to change the course of the ship as much of what is underway cannot be undone or stopped without even more cost or possible loss of the Marriott management they seem to desire. Since so many options are not on the table the narrow "acceptable" options may be extremely limited even if a new Board is created. Owners would be well advised to carefully consider what voting out Board members really means to the Association.

 

[ecwinch]

RetiredToTravel - thanks for typing that out.

John - thanks for the post, that was my original observation.

So essentially, the "Success" plan goes like this.

The three board members are voted off. Leaving Allan and the MVCI rep to select owners to fill the three vacant seats. Their votes essentially cancel each other out, or ensure that any candidate would have to be more moderate in their approach. For instance, MarkSue or LoveAruba are unlikely to be selected to fill a vacancy. Not that they would want to be.

And not to make anyone paranoid. But here is one strategy that MVCI could use if they do actually have the puppets:

If one member resigns after the proxy goes out, then that vacancy would be filled by the current board in a special session of the BOD. Another puppet could be installed. Leaving four puppets and Allan.

Then the other two puppets are recalled, and their vacancies are filled - but the puppets have the majority (2 to 1), and fill vacancies with more puppets.

Similarly all the members subject to recall could resign, one after another, and be replaced by another puppet. I do not believe this to be likely unless MVCI is truly the evil developer they have been made out to be by MarkSue. But it is not impossible, that one or more members would take this as vote of non-confidence and give up their unpaid volunteer position.

None of this should be perceived as diminishing what Marksue has accomplished. I still think he did a great job.

But it might have been better to determine if all three were puppets rather than painting all three with the same brush. You might be removing someone who is not a puppet, and voted in what they thought was the best interest of the members.

 

[ecwinch]

Eric, I'm not an owner at Aruba Ocean Club either, but everything in this thread interests me as an MVCI owner. It's worrisome how the actions at this resort will impact all of the other resorts, because as near as I can see the BOD at MOC has followed the same procedures as are in place at all of the other resorts.

I'm worried that MVCI-wide changes in policy/procedure (that are working at all of the other resorts) might be the fallout from this situation.

Sue,

Your point is one of the reasons I have been involved in this thread despite criticism from the anti-Marriott crowd. What is happening at the OC clearly has implications for the other resorts. We are all related in that respect.

Thanks

 

[marksue]

It is up to the owners to decide what they want. There is enough distrust in the current board that over a thousand owners are supporting this effort. It is now open to the general owner population to decide what they want to do. We certainly hope for the best. There is certainly the chance we don't have enough support. If we do not succeed we have at least let the board know there are many people angry about the events over the last 6 months and that we want change and will hold whoever is on the board accountable.

ANy board member can be recalled so resigning and being replaced doesn't protect anyone if the owners want to recall the person. The new board member can be replaced in the same meeting.


I know not everyone supports this effort, but many do. There were some that were not in favor of this step but still support the effort of driving more transparency.

 

[timeos2]

Not so fast. The meeting is only good for one thing

ANy board member can be recalled so resigning and being replaced doesn't protect anyone if the owners want to recall the person. The new board member can be replaced in the same meeting.

That gets pretty technical as to what the exact procedures may be but I seriously doubt that once a new member or members are appointed - thus a new Board is formed - those members can be recalled at the same meeting. As it is a new Board there would have to be another 10% petition by owners and another meeting scheduled to remove a member of the newly constituted Board. In other words the whole process would have to start again to recall a new Board member or members. Any other way makes no sense as the ownership has no way to petition for the recall of a non-sitting Board member or members. Once the sitting member(s) are voted on the recall is over and the new Board of existing members or those who replaced those recalled now starts fresh. There cannot be a do over of another immediate recall as I read it.

 

[lovearuba]

While passionate, this really does not introduce any new facts or evidence to the discussion.

I am not insinuating that Mark is making this up. But his passion clearly is coloring his view of the events, and could color the accounts he provides.

I am not doubting that some owners are frustrated. Owners are always frustrated by increased m/f and special assessments. No one is disputing those facts and the angst of the owners.

I am not advocating that you stop trying. I am advocating that you moderate your position. Extreme positions are rarely well received by the target of those acts.

I dont owe you any evidence and almost feel like this thread has become a trial of everything the "real" Marriott Aruba Ocean club owners" have worked hard to change. What has happened with our timeshare is unfair and clearly abuse by Marriott. We are making change and it will be effective. It doesnt matter who gets elected to the board as long as they look out for the interests of the owners and cleary communicate the owners concerns and the actions they take on behalf of the owners. Cutting out communications to the owners is evident and totally uncalled for.

Once again I want to thank the Marriott Aruba Ocean club owners who have the strength to continue to post to this site and voice your concerns and your support of the actions of Marksue and your disappointment with the removal of Allan Cohen.



Thanks so much to the two Erics who have kept this thread alive, you are really helping our cause. Everytime you post to this site and interrogate Marksue you do a service by bringing additional attention to our plight. We love you.:whoopie:

 

[ecwinch]

ANy board member can be recalled so resigning and being replaced doesn't protect anyone if the owners want to recall the person. The new board member can be replaced in the same meeting.

Without it being on the published agenda? So you can change the agenda for the special meeting without notice?

For instance, you have requested the special meeting for the replacement of the three specific board members. If I am appointed to fill the vacancy of someone who quits because they are fed up, can I be recalled without another special meeting being called. As a rule of order, I would think someone could object since it was not on the published agenda.

And John's observation is spot on. If you could do this without it being on the agenda. Then if you did not like the replacement BOD members, you could just request another recall vote in that same meeting. Then rinse and repeat until you get the results you want.

 

[ecwinch]

I dont owe you any evidence and almost feel like this thread has become a trial of everything the "real" Marriott Aruba Ocean club owners" have worked hard to change.

Thanks so much to the two Erics who have kept this thread alive, you are really helping our cause. Everytime you post to this site and interrogate Marksue you do a service by bringing additional attention to our plight. We love you.:whoopie:

All that has been done is asking honest questions and presenting a different viewpoint. I think it has sharpened your position.

If you go back to the beginning of the thread you will see that Dave M took a similar position.

And thank you, I am glad that I have been able to help your cause. I was beginning to think my efforts were not appreciated.

I do think it is funny that when we question you, it is putting you on "trial". What is it when you do the same of your current BOD?

Like my Grandma said - "If you can't stand heat, stay out of the kitchen."