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

[ecwinch]

Luckybee, are you sure they have you as an owner. I am getting lots of recent correspondence. A letter by snail mail today and an email today and numerous other emails within the last few days. Just seems really uncoordinated and suggests to me that they need help keeping their members list up to date.

Supporting my previous point.

 

[Luckybee]

Luckybee, are you sure they have you as an owner. I am getting lots of recent correspondence. A letter by snail mail today and an email today and numerous other emails within the last few days. Just seems really uncoordinated and suggests to me that they need help keeping their members list up to date.

Well I know that I never had problems getting anything when Allan was there. They had no trouble sending us 2 copies of the bill for the special levy so yes I think they know that we are owners. But you're right, there is obviously confusion because I just spoke with someone else tonight who was also on Mark's list and they didnt receive any of the new letters either.
In retrospect Im kinda glad I didnt get the letter addressed to me. It would really burn me to receive that type of correspondence and basically be told that I couldnt respond to the writer(s) of the letter.

 

[modoaruba]

As if their attempts to be more transparent have helped them so far? No, it has the exact opposite affect, they are just accused of being a puppet for MVCI.

I think most Marriott owners would welcome the amount of effort they have spent on communicating with owners. But no matter what they do, it is not enough.

And you have me at a disadvantage, since the last communication from the board has not been shared.

Being sarcastic? I was too.
I also have gotten numerous emails from the BOD.
I agree that the malority of owners do appreciate the correspondance.
I also believe that it should have been sent out sooner to avoid many of the negative posts claiming lack of transparancy.
Now that its out there, there can be debate as to its accuracy if need be.
Do you believe a majority of owners know about all this hullabaloo or even care?

 

[timeos2]

Rare that owners truly call the shots

Do you believe a majority of owners know about all this hullabaloo or even care?

The majority certainly know about the special assessment and care about that. They also likely have zero idea about the brouhaha here and even if they knew wouldn't react. The only area that really gets owners attention is when it hits their wallet. Most know little to nothing about the workings of the Board/Management and aren't going to lift a finger to figure it out. That's just the way it is in timeshare - a fact all too well known by developers and used to their maximum advantage in most cases.

 

[qlaval]

...That's just the way it is in timeshare - a fact all too well known by developers and used to their maximum advantage in most cases.

Couldn't have said better...

 

[Luckybee]

As an fyi for any others still waiting...I just got my letter from the "board" today by snail mail. Better late than never I guess

 

[ecwinch]

Thought I would share

Early on in this "crusade" I always wondered why Mark seemed to be acting as a proxy for Allan. Early on it was mentioned by Mark, that Allan could not post to a forum like this.

I kinda that that was wrong at the time.

But now I have found this, while doing research on HOA governance issues. Thought I would share:

CONDO DIRECTOR ON THE CHAT LINE - DOES THAT MEAN TROUBLE??

Here is an except:

And once the majority of the board has approved an action, anything a minority or dissident board member does or says on the chat line to undermine that action is - arguably - contrary to the best interests of the group as a whole. This is not a problem for an owner in terms of fiduciary duty (although it may raise other issues such as defamation or misrepresentation of information), but it is a big problem for a board member - because a board member has a fiduciary duty which means a duty to put the interests of the group ahead of his or her own interests or those of any individual owner.

 

[lovearuba]

Early on in this "crusade" I always wondered why Mark seemed to be acting as a proxy for Allan. Early on it was mentioned by Mark, that Allan could not post to a forum like this.

I kinda that that was wrong at the time.

But now I have found this, while doing research on HOA governance issues. Thought I would share:

CONDO DIRECTOR ON THE CHAT LINE - DOES THAT MEAN TROUBLE??

Here is an except:

And once the majority of the board has approved an action, anything a minority or dissident board member does or says on the chat line to undermine that action is - arguably - contrary to the best interests of the group as a whole. This is not a problem for an owner in terms of fiduciary duty (although it may raise other issues such as defamation or misrepresentation of information), but it is a big problem for a board member - because a board member has a fiduciary duty which means a duty to put the interests of the group ahead of his or her own interests or those of any individual owner.

I never officially asked Allan why he didnt post before, I know he was aware of Marriott monitoring the thread. I suggested to him that he should post so that folks could hear it from him. I was very pleased to see that he did post. I cannot imagine how difficult it is to try to put the interests of the group ahead of the remainging BOD members own interests and not being able to share it on a forum like this. These are not Allan's own interests, they are the interests of many of us owners.

 

[ecwinch]

I never officially asked Allan why he didnt post before, I know he was aware of Marriott monitoring the thread. I suggested to him that he should post so that folks could hear it from him. I was very pleased to see that he did post. I cannot imagine how difficult it is to try to put the interests of the group ahead of the remainging BOD members own interests and not being able to share it on a forum like this. These are not Allan's own interests, they are the interests of many of us owners.

Yes. I see you got the point of the article in the link.

 

[Luckybee]

I dont think you would find that Allan would be breaching his fiduciary duties by posting here(or anywhere else for that matter). He is after all "putting the interests of the group ahead of his or her own interests or those of any individual owner." That is exactly why he is taking the actions that he has in fact taken. No one can possibly think that after having the wonderful relationship that he had with MVC for many years which only changed when he began to uncover some of the problems, that he decided to challenge them for any purpose other than the owners interest. It would defy logic to think otherwise. I mean lets face it...had he sat back, and not raised the issues, Marriott would have left in place a motion they had brought forward to extend his term limits. Funny thing that they no longer wanted him then.
Rather you might find that there are peculiar unique rules that this particular board put in place that may have prevented him from so doing.
As he has already indicated, he is more than willing to communicate with individual owners either by phone or email. I suggest rather than attempting to "guess" why he isnt posting here on a regular basis anyone who is interested in contributing should make contact with him directly .

 

[Dean]

I never officially asked Allan why he didnt post before, I know he was aware of Marriott monitoring the thread. I suggested to him that he should post so that folks could hear it from him. I was very pleased to see that he did post. I cannot imagine how difficult it is to try to put the interests of the group ahead of the remainging BOD members own interests and not being able to share it on a forum like this. These are not Allan's own interests, they are the interests of many of us owners.

But was that successfully done in this case. Funneling information privately that is counterproductive to the BOD and management company is likely an even more risky position than would posts on a thread such as this if it can be proven. If that information can later to proven to have cost the management company or resort $$$, such a member of the BOD is likely at risk personally for legal action for those $$$ and I don't think directors insurance would cover such an action. I know there's a fine line between being a valid whistle blower and a spy working for another team in such a situation and you can really only judge somewhat accurately which is which well after the fact, sometimes not even then.

 

[lovearuba]

Transparency

But was that successfully done in this case. Funneling information privately that is counterproductive to the BOD and management company is likely an even more risky position than would posts on a thread such as this if it can be proven.

Its interesting to me that someone who speaks out for the people they represent should be challenged for doing what they were voted in to do. We are built on a principle of no taxation without representation and I just dont understand why those principles are taken so lightly by people. I am disappointed that the rest of the board didnt represent the owners. I am also really sorry that Arne Sorensen forwards all letters directed to him by owners to Dirk to respond to. Dirk sends a form letter and promises to get back to folk to address their specific issues. If I get a specific response I will know they actually read the letter. Stay tuned!!!

 

[ecwinch]

Its interesting to me that someone who speaks out for the people they represent should be challenged for doing what they were voted in to do. We are built on a principle of no taxation without representation and I just dont understand why those principles are taken so lightly by people. I am disappointed that the rest of the board didnt represent the owners. I am also really sorry that Arne Sorensen forwards all letters directed to him by owners to Dirk to respond to. Dirk sends a form letter and promises to get back to folk to address their specific issues. If I get a specific response I will know they actually read the letter. Stay tuned!!!

I think that is where you are wrong. The rest of the board represented those owners who just want to enjoy their vacation and not have to fund a lawsuit against MVCI.

The owners who would rather not worry about the potential damage to the reputation of the resort, or alienating MVCI and possibly losing benefits from the relationship vs the uncertain outcome of legal action.

The owners who want to come to a clean well run resort or exchange to other Marriot resorts.

Allan represented a minority who wanted MVCI to:
1) reimburse the resort for any increased costs resulting from the defective building
2) pay to fix the defective building

And were willing to pursue an uncertain lawsuit to achieve that result.

The BOD chose the former group. In my opinion a similar cry would have been raised if the BOD had decided to pursue the lawsuit. Particularly after the owners received the first m/f increase due to the legal costs.

 

[modoaruba]

Its interesting to me that someone who speaks out for the people they represent should be challenged for doing what they were voted in to do. We are built on a principle of no taxation without representation and I just dont understand why those principles are taken so lightly by people. I am disappointed that the rest of the board didnt represent the owners. I am also really sorry that Arne Sorensen forwards all letters directed to him by owners to Dirk to respond to. Dirk sends a form letter and promises to get back to folk to address their specific issues. If I get a specific response I will know they actually read the letter. Stay tuned!!!

I hate to say it , but I agree with Eric.
When you say the rest of the board didn't represent the owners,does that mean the owners who did not agree with their decision or the majority of owners who did? How do you measure since most owners are silent?
We don't live in a perfect world. It would be nice for Marriott to flip100% of the bill. Since they are not, as I stated before, how much are you willing to spend to try to make them?
Unless someone comes up with earth shattering evidence of foul play, I for one will bite the bullitt and make it a lesson learned.
We will be in Aruba shortly and WILL have a wonderful time without getting into the politics. Vacations and life are too short.

 

[lovearuba]

the rest of the board represented Marriott

I think that is where you are wrong. The rest of the board represented those owners who just want to enjoy their vacation and not have to fund a lawsuit against MVCI.

The owners who would rather not worry about the potential damage to the reputation of the resort, or alienating MVCI and possibly losing benefits from the relationship vs the uncertain outcome of legal action.

The owners who want to come to a clean well run resort or exchange to other Marriot resorts.

Allan represented a minority who wanted MVCI to:
1) reimburse the resort for any increased costs resulting from the defective building
2) pay to fix the defective building

And were willing to pursue an uncertain lawsuit to achieve that result.

The BOD chose the former group. In my opinion a similar cry would have been raised if the BOD had decided to pursue the lawsuit. Particularly after the owners received the first m/f increase due to the legal costs.

I disagree, I think the rest of the bod are weak and not willing to stick up for the right thing. Lets not get so tied up in the word lawsuit since it has been stated numerous times that it was the last resort. Numerous other attempts to get heard have been done to no avail. Will a lawsuit be useful? Who knows? I've seen some pretty effective ones. Yes the lawyers get most of the money but if an unfair business practice is challenged its worth the effort.

I dont agree that the rest of the board represented the owners not involved in this cause. The rest of the bod did nothing to get transparency. At least nothing that is transparent since I cant see it. They are not representing others, they are representing Marriott since they are not even allowed to talk. When they start to open up the actions of the bod going forward, I for one will stop pursuing a change. I dont care about whats happened in the past and I'm not expecting Marriott to make things right from a historical perspective since they cant admit to it, it would be too damaging.

What I am hoping for is that the owners are given information that we feel entitled to. That is when we know what is going on and the secrecy is over. I find it interesting that you seem to want to represent the other owners, you really cant assume you know what they feel, many of them have their timeshares on the market. Take a look at the numerous ones out on Marriott's site alone.

There are over 1000 owners that have followed the prescribed actions, written to the board, written to Marriott, obtained enough signatures for a special meeting, etc.

I know you will have lots to say about my comments Eric and I appreciate your comments, I really do. You sometimes impress me with your interest in this issue. Seems a little unusual but it does really help folks who have no idea of whats happening to get the opportunity to see what is going on. A balanced discussion has been fun and keeps it alive. Thanks

 

[lovearuba]

HMM

Allan's integrity is what is needed in a BOD that represents the owner's interest.
But integrity like this obviously comes with a price.
For owners to be complacent feeds the powers that be.

The unbiased knowledge of the history of the resort,the discoveries and findings are utmost in pursuing a solution.

I want to feel that my fees are going to legitimate uses without supporting a cover-up.

Do we want a checks and balances system with a supporting BOD that has the owner's interest foremost or pay the fees and shut up system?

All that is wanted is the questions answered truthfully and the rightful parties do the right thing.

Have you changed your perspective? Just curious since this previous post is not inline with your most recent one. Dont get me wrong, you and I both have a right to change our mind as more information comes available.

 

[modoaruba]

Have you changed your perspective? Just curious since this previous post is not inline with your most recent one. Dont get me wrong, you and I both have a right to change our mind as more information comes available.

Hi There,
I still stand by what I have stated. That is my perfect world outlook.
It has just come to a point whereby being a businessman, where do you cut your losses.
I for one would not like to chase good money after bad.
The BOD have communicated to us their story by email.
Some of us accept it and some do not.
The fees having gone up the way they did is not a good thing,especially during these times.
But the reality of it, it will not change my life.
I still believe that timeshares are not a good buy at this time and since I am committed I will make the best of it.
I enjoy our timeshare and value the time we are there and the last thing I want to happen is to have a not so good of a time.
I would love Marriott to step up to the plate and pay for it all and still believe they should. How much are you willing to gamble?

 

[ecwinch]

I disagree, I think the rest of the bod are weak and not willing to stick up for the right thing. Lets not get so tied up in the word lawsuit since it has been stated numerous times that it was the last resort. Numerous other attempts to get heard have been done to no avail. Will a lawsuit be useful? Who knows? I've seen some pretty effective ones. Yes the lawyers get most of the money but if an unfair business practice is challenged its worth the effort.

I dont agree that the rest of the board represented the owners not involved in this cause. The rest of the bod did nothing to get transparency. At least nothing that is transparent since I cant see it. They are not representing others, they are representing Marriott since they are not even allowed to talk. When they start to open up the actions of the bod going forward, I for one will stop pursuing a change. I dont care about whats happened in the past and I'm not expecting Marriott to make things right from a historical perspective since they cant admit to it, it would be too damaging.

What I am hoping for is that the owners are given information that we feel entitled to. That is when we know what is going on and the secrecy is over. I find it interesting that you seem to want to represent the other owners, you really cant assume you know what they feel, many of them have their timeshares on the market. Take a look at the numerous ones out on Marriott's site alone.

There are over 1000 owners that have followed the prescribed actions, written to the board, written to Marriott, obtained enough signatures for a special meeting, etc.

I know you will have lots to say about my comments Eric and I appreciate your comments, I really do. You sometimes impress me with your interest in this issue. Seems a little unusual but it does really help folks who have no idea of whats happening to get the opportunity to see what is going on. A balanced discussion has been fun and keeps it alive. Thanks

I respect your opinion also. I just wish your group would spend more time being transparent, and not spend so much time trying the "incite" the crowd.

So when you say:

- The rest of the bod did nothing to get transparency
- they are representing Marriott since they are not even allowed to talk
- obtained enough signatures for a special meeting

I feel compelled to dispute statements for a lack of proof or as being inaccurate.

Anyone who has followed this thread for awhile knows the difference between rhetoric and fact.

I only wish there was some proof backing up your claims. You want transpancy, then start releasing this "proof" you have. You have the engineers report, why not make it public?

When it was first reported that MVCI rejected the request for a special meeting, I was behind you 100%.

But then it came out that you did not have signatures. And that not everyone was fully informed on what they were providing their owner information for.

Do you think that if you had not went off half-cocked, we would be debating the issue now. Mark could not even articulate the plan once the owners meeting was called. If you had been a little bit more transparent, do you not think that someone would have said "what about getting the signatures?".

I just wish you best, I just do not know what you are wishing for. I guess a a big judgement for a defective product that you have enjoyed for 10 years...

 

[Dean]

Its interesting to me that someone who speaks out for the people they represent should be challenged for doing what they were voted in to do. We are built on a principle of no taxation without representation and I just dont understand why those principles are taken so lightly by people. I am disappointed that the rest of the board didnt represent the owners. I am also really sorry that Arne Sorensen forwards all letters directed to him by owners to Dirk to respond to. Dirk sends a form letter and promises to get back to folk to address their specific issues. If I get a specific response I will know they actually read the letter. Stay tuned!!!

Actually I'm not challenging, merely raising the idea that if there is risk in participating in such a thread (and I think there is as in Eric's link above) that there is likely as much or more risk in getting a proxy to do it for you and supplying them with inside information. Actually being a dissenting BOD members likely carries much more risk than is touted in that article if one takes it out of the boardroom. Assuming his heart truly is in the right place as you obviously think it is and I have no reason to think otherwise, I'd commend him for taking the risk. I bet he knew it was a risk early on. IMO it is quite a risk as I'd think the BOD and Management company could bring legal proceedings if they so chose and likely successfully.

 

[icydog]

Just one question. Is this the same owner who used your home computer to create an account on TUG and back everything you said YET it wasn't you of course ?

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=724026&postcount=1131

(Credibility is hard to get back once you lose it)

Eric, how do you know which computer was used to make a post? Isn't that Brian's (from Tug ownership) private information.

 

[marksue]

Do you think that if you had not went off half-cocked, we would be debating the issue now. Mark could not even articulate the plan once the owners meeting was called. If you had been a little bit more transparent, do you not think that someone would have said "what about getting the signatures?".
.

I was quite articulate with the plan. Once the meeting was called the owners would vote on weather or not they wanted to recall any of the board members. The remaining members would then appoint others to fulfill the remaining term times of those removed. With the new board we could pass by-laws that made actions more transparent. Not sure what part of that you did not understand. I have said that all along. If the owners voted to keep all the board members then that would have been the decision.

As for the owners not knowing about the meeting. I had over 500 weeks of emails supporting the effort in calling for a special meeting, and I have copies of them. The folks in Aruba gathering signatures let people know what was the plan and the intent of calling a meeting. A couple may not have been completely clear so prior to sending the letter to Marriott calling the special meeting an opt out email was sent to everyone on the list. If they were not interested in having their name used then it was removed from the list. SO most whose names were submitted knew about the meeting.

 

[icydog]

caveat emptor,quia ignorare non debuit quod jus alienum emit.

Let the purchaser beware,for he ought not be ignorant of the nature of the property which he is buying from another party.

aveat emptor,quia ignorare non debit quod jus alienum emit.

Eric, how do you know which computer was used to make a post? Isn't that Brian's (from Tug ownership) private information.

Never mind, it's none of my business

 

[timeos2]

The meeting isn't an automatic recall

I was quite articulate with the plan. Once the meeting was called the owners would vote on weather or not they wanted to recall any of the board members. The remaining members would then appoint others to fulfill the remaining term times of those removed. With the new board we could pass by-laws that made actions more transparent. Not sure what part of that you did not understand. I have said that all along. If the owners voted to keep all the board members then that would have been the decision.

As for the owners not knowing about the meeting. I had over 500 weeks of emails supporting the effort in calling for a special meeting, and I have copies of them. The folks in Aruba gathering signatures let people know what was the plan and the intent of calling a meeting. A couple may not have been completely clear so prior to sending the letter to Marriott calling the special meeting an opt out email was sent to everyone on the list. If they were not interested in having their name used then it was removed from the list. SO most whose names were submitted knew about the meeting.

I have fortunately never had to have a recall special election/meeting called for one of my resorts but if there was it only makes sense to me that all the 1000 signatures - if you had the actual signatures in the format required to submit and get the meeting called - would only serve to force the meeting. Notice would then have to go out to ALL owners along with an agenda. Then if there was to be a vote - such as a vote to remove one or more Directors - ALL owners that wished could attend or submit a legal proxy for yeah or nay to that. The 1000 names doesn't count as a vote - only as the method to get the meeting & then a proper vote called. There is ZERO guarantee that the resulting vote would have in fact removed any Board members. In fact it appears Marriott holds enough votes - that's what you say about the last election - to out vote the independent owners. So the result would have likely been a special meeting/ Association vote with no changes made to the makeup of the Board.

It is a great leap of faith to think all 1000 of those that may have signed up requesting the special meeting would also vote as your group wishes to remove one or more Board members and it is almost unthinkable that there would have been enough independent votes to out vote the Marriott held block. So it appears that with or without the special meeting you have the Board you are going to have to deal with until the owners collectively vote new ones in as it is supposed to work. As long as they don't why would any vote turn out differently? Again it appears to be a case of wanting things as you think they should be rather than as the documents / laws allow. What does the lawyer say?

 

[ecwinch]

aveat emptor,quia ignorare non debit quod jus alienum emit.

Never mind, it's none of my business

The other Eric (not me), was referring to an early post from DaveM, where DaveM, as a moderator, was asked to look at the IP (computer) addresses some posts were coming from. A new user that sent a post supporting Mark, came from the same computer address that Mark uses. Mark explained that a friend came over to his house and used his computer.

Most of us accepted that answer, and moved on. Some did not.

 

[ecwinch]

I have fortunately never had to have a recall special election/meeting called for one of my resorts but if there was it only makes sense to me that all the 1000 signatures - if you had the actual signatures in the format required to submit and get the meeting called - would only serve to force the meeting. Notice would then have to go out to ALL owners along with an agenda. Then if there was to be a vote - such as a vote to remove one or more Directors - ALL owners that wished could attend or submit a legal proxy for yeah or nay to that. The 1000 names doesn't count as a vote - only as the method to get the meeting & then a proper vote called. There is ZERO guarantee that the resulting vote would have in fact removed any Board members. In fact it appears Marriott holds enough votes - that's what you say about the last election - to out vote the independent owners. So the result would have likely been a special meeting/ Association vote with no changes made to the makeup of the Board.

It is a great leap of faith to think all 1000 of those that may have signed up requesting the special meeting would also vote as your group wishes to remove one or more Board members and it is almost unthinkable that there would have been enough independent votes to out vote the Marriott held block. So it appears that with or without the special meeting you have the Board you are going to have to deal with until the owners collectively vote new ones in as it is supposed to work. As long as they don't why would any vote turn out differently? Again it appears to be a case of wanting things as you think they should be rather than as the documents / laws allow. What does the lawyer say?

All valid points, and very similar to what was discussed pages ago. I, among others, specifically asked what the strategy was. Mark was not as forthcoming then as he was now. We specifically asked about the agenda issues, and proper notice of the meeting, and got minimal response.

I think the logic at that time was to surprise MVCI. Not realizing that you cannot really do that in an election process.

And the special meeting probably would not have met quorum requirements without the proper number of owners or properly executed proxies. Just a guess though. Mark can tell you if he had enough properly executed proxies to meet quorum requirements.