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

[Luckybee]

Mark must have found that engineers report on his own. He has already retracted his early statements that Allan suggested the lawsuit.

Your right, I doubt that Allan has had much influence on Mark's decisions at all.

Oh, yes - I believe in the tooth fairy and that we never landed on the moon.
:rofl:

I didnt mean to leave the impression that Allan wasnt influencing Mark's decisions...wasnt what I meant at all....I have no idea whether Allan shared info with Mark...what I meant to convey was that I am aware that Allan struggle to get something accomplished began long before Mark and other owners got involved. All i am saying is that Mark doesnt speak for Allan anymore than I do.

 

[ecwinch]

I think you'll find that no one provided Mark with a "proxy" for either situation, as the bylaws make no mention of a proxy being needed to call the meeting, and it certainly wasnt Mark who had the majority of proxies for the general meeting...I dont think he had any...but he'd have to answer that himself.
I also think you would find that only after a special meting was called would proxies then be needed to vote at a meeting....it isnt a one step process imho, and that may be what one of the issues will turn out to be later.

Sorry, this part of the logic breaks down completely.

Someone read the by-laws, and saw what?

Despite asking this question repeatedly I have never got a straight answer on how the "crusaders" thought this would play out.

It requires 10% of the owners to call a special meeting. Ok. Once the meeting is called, then what happens? What is the agenda? What is going to be decided in this special meeting, and how will members that cannot attend the meeting in ARUBA, know what to vote on? How will they vote?

 

[SueDonJ]

You did not provide him with a proxy to call the special meeting? To vote on your behalf?

I think you'll find that no one provided Mark with a "proxy" for either situation, as the bylaws make no mention of a proxy being needed to call the meeting, and it certainly wasnt Mark who had the majority of proxies for the general meeting...I dont think he had any...but he'd have to answer that himself.
I also think you would find that only after a special meting was called would proxies then be needed to vote at a meeting....it isnt a one step process imho, and that may be what one of the issues will turn out to be later.

I didn't think that Mark held any proxies for that submission to try to call for a special meeting because that was only an attempted petition. [Edit:] If the petition had been correct/accepted and the special meeting had been scheduled to put forth the motion for an ownership-wide vote to recall three members of the BOD, the proxies for that meeting would have been drawn up and delivered to the owners based on the correct submission to enact the bylaw provision.*

[*Beginning on page 14 here is a detailed explanation of this process, as well as some interesting but incomplete information about the anticipated next steps that would have to be taken in order for the ownership group to force the (hopefully newly-elected) BOD to enact new bylaws and provisions related to "transparency."]

But when I referred to Mark as Allan's proxy above, I meant proxy in the sense that Mark was Allan's mouthpiece for purposes of this thread while Allan was still a sitting member of the BOD. I'd be very surprised to learn that Allan isn't and hasn't been the mastermind.

 

[Luckybee]

Throughout the discussion you've given no response which amounts to an argument against any of my positions, other than to say that you think it's "silly" for me to contribute anything because I am not an owner at Aruba Ocean Club.

That's fine, it's as valid a reason as any for you to not respond to my particular posts. But now when I asked point-blank for you to produce something I'd written where a supporting explanation wasn't included, you're saying that you discounted all those posts of mine because my stated opinions had no merit?

Well, that's also fine. Except your two reasons are completely different. I don't suppose you'll want to go back and revisit any of those posts to point out exactly what you disagree with?

My exact words were "I wont get into the boards explanations ...suffice to say that imho an explantion without merit is equivalent to no explanation"...the without merit comment was clearly in reference to THE BOARD....where did i mention you in this comment?

I havent changed my opinion that I dont understand the interest by non owners...but thats why there is vanilla and chocolate !

 

[Luckybee]

Sorry, this part of the logic breaks down completely.

Someone read the by-laws, and saw what?

Despite asking this question repeatedly I have never got a straight answer on how the "crusaders" thought this would play out.

It requires 10% of the owners to call a special meeting. Ok. Once the meeting is called, then what happens? What is the agenda? What is going to be decided in this special meeting, and how will members that cannot attend the meeting in ARUBA, know what to vote on? How will they vote?

On these issues it isnt for me to say...and I would be personally disappointed if anyone were to provide an answer to this here .

 

[SueDonJ]

My exact words were "I wont get into the boards explanations ...suffice to say that imho an explantion without merit is equivalent to no explanation"...the without merit comment was clearly in reference to THE BOARD....where did i mention you in this comment? ...

Riiiiight. You responded to this:

... Then you're not comprehending anything I've written here. I don't disagree with the actions/decisions of Marriott/MVCI/the BOD because while there is no smoking gun to discredit them, there is concrete, tangible, recorded information that validates their actions/decisions. If you can show me somewhere in this thread where I've taken their actions at face value without an explanation for why, then produce it.

with this:

... I wont get into the boards explanations ...suffice to say that imho an explantion without merit is equivalent to no explanation.

But you were writing about "THE BOARD." What then, exactly, is "THE BOARD?" Because it sure wasn't mentioned in anything I asked you about.

 

[ecwinch]

I didnt mean to leave the impression that Allan wasnt influencing Mark's decisions...wasnt what I meant at all....I have no idea whether Allan shared info with Mark...what I meant to convey was that I am aware that Allan struggle to get something accomplished began long before Mark and other owners got involved. All i am saying is that Mark doesnt speak for Allan anymore than I do.

Your specific statement was that you were "confident that Mark is by no means Allans proxy".

Yes, Allan did struggle to get something accomplished, for as Mark posted here, in his capacity as a BoD member, there were certain things that he could not do. But serendipity, along came Mark. What a coincidence.

Things that Allan could not say, Mark was free to say.

Information that Allan could not share, Mark was free to share.

Action that Allan could not pursue, Mark was free to do.

We might have different definitions of what a proxy is. Here is one:

Proxy may refer to one who or that which acts on behalf of someone or something else

 

[ecwinch]

On these issues it isnt for me to say...and I would be personally disappointed if anyone were to provide an answer to this here .

Maybe the By-Laws for the AOC, are completely upside down. But this is information that would have to be disclosed for a vote on any issue to occur. I fail to understand how the effort would be comprised by outlining the plan.

How do you think this works?

 

[ecwinch]

I didn't think that Mark held any proxies for that submission to try to call for a special meeting because that was only an attempted petition. If the petition had been correct/accepted and the special meeting had taken place to put forth the motion for an ownership-wide vote to recall three members of the BOD, the proxies would have been drawn up and delivered to the owners based on the results of that meeting.

Lets pull on that thread.

Lets say the petition was accepted. So now a special meeting is scheduled. A notice of that meeting has be sent out, and the matter under consideration must be disclosed.

Most members will not be able to attend. What is the process for them voting on the motion under consideration at the special meeting?

 

[modoaruba]

my 2cents

I have been reading this blog now from its beginning.
Its gotten very redundant with this back and forth getting nowhere but ruffling feathers stuff.
A lot of it is speculative on both sides. What if this what if that,etc. And worse yet,this is because of that and this one meant that without merit.
To reduce this to a common denominator at this point is to wait and see what does happen when Mark presents the case through legal council.
He said he would post then.
Until then whooa. I need an Advil.

 

[marksue]

Most members will not be able to attend. What is the process for them voting on the motion under consideration at the special meeting?

I have responded to this before and will give it to you again. Once the meeting is called a proxy is sent to all owners explaing the intent of the meeting and the owners vote as in any election. You then need a quorum like in any other election. Those that can not attend can assign the proxy as they do in any other election.

Why not let the owners have a say?

 

[SueDonJ]

I have been reading this blog now from its beginning.
Its gotten very redundant with this back and forth getting nowhere but ruffling feathers stuff.
A lot of it is speculative on both sides. What if this what if that,etc. And worse yet,this is because of that and this one meant that without merit.
To reduce this to a common denominator at this point is to wait and see what does happen when Mark presents the case through legal council.
He said he would post then.
Until then whooa. I need an Advil.

You think this is headache-inducing? You should take a look at the snake pop-art posted over at The Lounge!

This is why I love the message board communication method - everybody is free to contribute in whatever manner they choose at any time. I want to write eight thousand words? Not a problem. He wants to sit back and watch until the end? Not a problem. She wants to criticize that one and praise the other one? Not a problem. It fits any style, any mood, any topic. How can anyone not love it?

 

[SueDonJ]

... Why not let the owners have a say?

I completely agree.

 

[ecwinch]

Why not let the owners have a say?

Because the tactics you used to solicit the 10% of members authorizations tainted the process. If a casual visitor observed the "beach" guy soliciting members owner information and not signatures (KEY POINT), do you think that OC mgt did not observe the same thing?

How can a BoD in good conscience authorize the expense of a special meeting without knowing that the members list being presented is accurate.

You already have a first hand account that the solicitation was not made on the basis of a recall election.

Or course the rebuttal is that "we sent an e-mail to everyone, offering to take them off the list".

But that whole process is not the same as having a properly endorsed petition for a recall meeting from 10% of the membership. This would be a document with the intent on the top, and then a place for members to fill in their information and to properly endorse the petition. Why skip that step?

Face it, all you did was solicit owners information. Then you sent an e-mail out saying here is what we going to do, respond if you want to be excluded from the petition.

Two different things entirely.

 

[ecwinch]

Why not let the owners have a say?

And help me understand again why this is not still an option. If you have the required 10% support, why not follow the proper procedure, and have the recall meeting?

 

[SueDonJ]

And help me understand again why this is not still an option. If you have the required 10% support, why not follow the proper procedure, and have the recall meeting?

Exactly.

I think all this cloak-and-dagger stuff about a new attorney and forthcoming paperwork means, actually, that there is a new attempt in the works to comply with the requirements to submit a correct petition. Who knows where things go from there?

 

[modoaruba]

You think this is headache-inducing? You should take a look at the snake pop-art posted over at The Lounge!

I thought that there were no snakes in Aruba

 

[SueDonJ]

I thought that there were no snakes in Aruba

Huh. I didn't know that. There's one more reason to put Aruba on an exchange list.

 

[ecwinch]

Exactly.

I think all this cloak-and-dagger stuff about a new attorney and forthcoming paperwork means, actually, that there is a new attempt in the works to comply with the requirements to submit a correct petition. Who knows where things go from there?

I hope you are right, and I am wrong.

And if the BoD did in fact previously retain the attorney in question, all they have to do is send a letter stating that their is conflict of interest, the attorney is violating attorney-client privilege by pursuing this action, and attorney is acting on privileged information. Then to court we go.

 

[modoaruba]

Huh. I didn't know that. There's one more reason to put Aruba on an exchange list.

But you got to like iguanas.
Sometimes they climb up to our balcony during lunch.
Got to watch the fruit,they love fruit especially bananas.

 

[qlaval]

I thought that there were no snakes in Aruba

Who told you that? There are quite a few on the island...

 

[SueDonJ]

But you got to like iguanas.
Sometimes they climb up to our balcony during lunch.
Got to watch the fruit,they love fruit especially bananas.

In Hawaii at the Waiohai there were these awesome cardinals like none I've seen here that not only visited your balconies, they'd walk right into your unit if the slider was open and wait patiently at the edge of the kitchen floor for you to either shoo them out or feed them. We shoo'ed them, but only after I took pictures!

 

[SueDonJ]

I hope you are right, and I am wrong.

And if the BoD did in fact previously retain the attorney in question, all they have to do is send a letter stating that their is conflict of interest, the attorney is violating attorney-client privilege by pursuing this action, and attorney is acting on privileged information. Then to court we go.

Good point.

 

[modoaruba]

Who told you that? There are quite a few on the island...

What kind you talking about? With or without feet?

 

[qlaval]

What kind you talking about? With or without feet?

Lol.. the one without feet.

Looks like you never saw an Arubian cascabel....
(the Arubian rattlesnake)

Lots of Boa too.

Would you like to see what was on the menu...