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

[lovearuba]

easter baskets

This is too "silly" for me to answer.

[Edit:] It's stupid to waste time trying to figure out if any of the motives for any of the actions taken by any of the folks involved here (meaning Marriott et al AND the owners) are "pure." Purity has no place in the dispute over timeshare contractual obligations and limitations. What you want to be concerned with, what you should be searching for validation of, is what makes sense under the circumstances and according to the laws. All the crap that's been written here about a lack of transparency and Marriott not being good guys and the majority owners not knowing what is going on and the supposed lawyers working on a contingency basis and Allan not being the mastermind and Mark not being Allan's proxy MAKES NO DAMN SENSE.

At least I can say that what I write isn't totally preposterous.

And yes, at my home if you don't acknowledge the spirit of the Easter Bunny, you don't get a basket.

I always get my girls easter baskets and I know they dont acknowledge the spirit of the Easter Bunny but they do acknowledge that I think about them on this special day and want them to know it. I am offended when folks like you refer to this as crap. Whether or not you believe in this cause does not allow you to disrespect other people's beliefs. You should continue to post your opinion but because something does not make sense to you does not mean you are right. It means you have a different opinion and if you want it to be respected you need to respect others.

 

[SueDonJ]

... It means you have a different opinion and if you want it to be respected you need to respect others.

Just one question - do you intend to admonish all of the folks here who have been less than respectful?

Truthfully, I'm not here looking for respect. If I was, I would have given up the ghost a long time ago because my post above is certainly not the first in this thread that wasn't respectful. I've said umpteen million times that I'm here because the topic interests me as an MVCI owner, and because there isn't any rule that says I can't be. I will share my opinions as easily as other share theirs, respond to comments directed to me in the same manner in which they are written, continue to ask questions when I don't know the answer - all of the usual things that make up a discussion on a message board. The individual readers can decide for themselves whether or not to consider or dismiss my posts.

Certainly none of us needs an individual lesson in etiquette.

 

[Dave M]

In my capacity as a BBS Moderator:

This thread has gotten out of hand again. If you wish to take potshots at another poster, please do it in your mind and not in print here. Post respectfully or not at all. Those who do not follow the "Be Courteous" Posting Rule risk suspension of posting privileges and will have posts deleted without warning.

Those who make any comments in print about this warning will also have their posts deleted for failing to heed the prohibition regarding discussion of moderating.

 

[ecwinch]

The owners who voted that day did not represent a majority of the entire ownership of Aruba Ocean Club. The fact that the minority number of owners who did vote chose to not reelect Frank Knox means NOTHING, insofar as obtaining a majority rule, because the management company's votes gave Frank Knox the majority he needed to be reelected.

A majority of the ownership of Aruba Ocean Club has remained silent (with their mouths and their votes) throughout this situation. That makes the folks who have not remained silent, the folks who have voiced their disagreement, a minority ownership group. By definition, that is a "splinter group."

Trying to bring this dialog back to a factual based discussion in the spirit of Dave's post, you have to recognize this is true. On this forum we crunched the numbers, and even if you doubled the votes, it still represents a minority of the eligible voters. So continuing to maintain that this crusade represents the will of owners is not consistent with the facts at hand. Sue is right in that regard.

And the problem with this whole thread is that the facts only come from one side of argument. Mark posts the facts as he sees them, e-mails received from other owners, Allan's regurgatations, and beyond that we have no facts from anyone else.

We still do not have a full accounting for how the votes were cast in the last election. Where those the mysterious "B" votes or proxies received from owners? Who knows?

 

[Luckybee]

Trying to bring this dialog back to a factual based discussion in the spirit of Dave's post, you have to recognize this is true. On this forum we crunched the numbers, and even if you doubled the votes, it still represents a minority of the eligible voters. So continuing to maintain that this crusade represents the will of owners is not consistent with the facts at hand. Sue is right in that regard.

And the problem with this whole thread is that the facts only come from one side of argument. Mark posts the facts as he sees them, e-mails received from other owners, Allan's regurgatations, and beyond that we have no facts from anyone else.

We still do not have a full accounting for how the votes were cast in the last election. Where those the mysterious "B" votes or proxies received from owners? Who knows?

The reason we only have the voting statistics from owners who were in attendance is because Marriott refuses to release the statistics themselves. But as was gathered the voting appears to break down as follows. It seems that there were : 4768 total owner votes or "A" share votes. This includes units that Marriott owns which were apparently 115, for a total of 230 votes. Candidates- Lifieri had 3116, Bury 1034, Knox 612, and Otoole 6. Marriott adds in their "B" share votes of 1500 which then increases Knox to 2112. The B share votes have nothing to do with proxies. Any proxy votes for any of the candiates are in the numbers of the owner votes.

 

[modoaruba]

The reason we only have the voting statistics from owners who were in attendance is because Marriott refuses to release the statistics themselves. But as was gathered the voting appears to break down as follows. It seems that there were : 4768 total owner votes or "A" share votes. This includes units that Marriott owns which were apparently 115, for a total of 230 votes. Candidates- Lifieri had 3116, Bury 1034, Knox 612, and Otoole 6. Marriott adds in their "B" share votes of 1500 which then increases Knox to 2112. The B share votes have nothing to do with proxies. Any proxy votes for any of the candiates are in the numbers of the owner votes.

Another Iranian election.
The numbers don't make sense.

 

[ecwinch]

The reason we only have the voting statistics from owners who were in attendance is because Marriott refuses to release the statistics themselves. But as was gathered the voting appears to break down as follows. It seems that there were : 4768 total owner votes or "A" share votes. This includes units that Marriott owns which were apparently 115, for a total of 230 votes. Candidates- Lifieri had 3116, Bury 1034, Knox 612, and Otoole 6. Marriott adds in their "B" share votes of 1500 which then increases Knox to 2112. The B share votes have nothing to do with proxies. Any proxy votes for any of the candiates are in the numbers of the owner votes.

So have we found where in the governing documents for the OC, it says that Marriott has 1500 votes. It should be clearly stated in the By-Laws or the Declaration.

And I am assuming that someone has directly e-mailed the BoD for the results, with either no response back or a response that says "we will not be releasing the results". This is not a Marriott issue, it is a BoD issue. Correct?

 

[SueDonJ]

... The numbers don't make sense.

How so? They add up, and they match what Allan posted here and what Mark posted here.

I do have one question about the 230 A Share votes that Marriott exercised.

When we receive proxy forms, we are allowed only one vote on each matter. In other words, we don't vote twice just because we own jointly. It's stipulated in my paperwork for SurfWatch, that because we own jointly, we had to designate on a CERTIFICATE OF VOTING MEMBER form one of us as the person who would "... cast the vote for each Time Sharing Interest owned ... in all matters pertaining to the operation of the Association." The form included three provisions - (one) that we were not required to designate a voting Member, (two) that if we did not, and were present at a meeting but could not concur on a decision, we would lose our right to vote on that subject, and (three) that if we did not, and only one of us was at a meeting, that one could cast the vote.

That's why I question how Marriott could vote twice for each of the 115 units that were bought back. Is that correct as related, that they cast 230 A share votes for 115 units? More importantly, does Aruba Ocean Club have the same owner/vote setup that my US resort, SurfWatch, utilizes?

Now it doesn't matter for the purposes of the election results as related by those at the meeting, because even if Marriott was only entitled to 115 A share votes, the votes for Frank Knox (382 owner/proxy votes + 115 Marriott owner votes + 1500 Marriott management votes = 1997) still would have exceeded those for "Candidate A" (1034).

But it is something that could be looked at further to possibly challenge. The problem there would be, if each jointly-owned unit IS only designated one vote, that might open up the possibility that each jointly-owned unit is also only designated one "right" of any kind. Would that impact how many owners are necessary to file a petition, such as the one that could be filed to force an initiation of an ownership-wide vote? In other words, can you count a married couple as two persons toward the 10% of owners required for a petition? I have no idea - it's just something to think about, another question for an attorney.

And, it might very well be a total waste of time thinking about it, if Marriott actually bought back 230 units or if Aruban law about timeshare ownership specifies that two votes (or an equal number of votes as owners) are designated to each unit sold.

 

[lovearuba]

B votes

So have we found where in the governing documents for the OC, it says that Marriott has 1500 votes. It should be clearly stated in the By-Laws or the Declaration.

And I am assuming that someone has directly e-mailed the BoD for the results, with either no response back or a response that says "we will not be releasing the results". This is not a Marriott issue, it is a BoD issue. Correct?

It speaks to B votes but I cant find a number in the document.

 

[m61376]

This might have been answered before, but I still don't understand what are "B" votes.

Also- it doesn't make sense for each owner rather than each unit to get a vote, since some units are owned by a couple, some singly,and others by more than 2 family members. Each ownership should have a set number of votes ascribed to it, which may be 2, but then every other unit, regardless of the number of owners listed on the deed, should have the same number of votes.

 

[modoaruba]

I was thrown off by candidate A had 3116 votes.

It basically comes down: to that any election that might have candidates or issues that are questionable in the eyes of Marriott that might change the balance of power;there has already been established a failsafe for Marriott to control no matter what.
We are basically servents to Marriott by being the ones paying their way with our MFs at their discretion in the guise of being owners.(associates).
The BOD seems to be selected by Marriott as the final say.
In the end it's their resort and we pay for the upkeep.

Just running at the mouth, it's Saturday.

 

[SueDonJ]

... It basically comes down: to that any election that might have candidates or issues that are questionable in the eyes of Marriott that might change the balance of power;there has already been established a failsafe for Marriott to control no matter what.

Except that Marriott's vote shares are limited to however many number of units they are holding as owners, and the 1,500 (I'm assuming that's a fixed number) management share votes. If enough owners were to participate in an election whereby Marriott's total votes alone, or in combination with owner votes, could not exceed the majority owners', then Marriott isn't guaranteed control.

We are basically servents to Marriott by being the ones paying their way with our MFs at their discretion in the guise of being owners.(associates).
The BOD seems to be selected by Marriott as the final say.
In the end it's their resort and we pay for the upkeep.

That's one way of looking at it. I like to say they are OUR resorts - yours, mine, the other owners', and Marriott's.

Just running at the mouth, it's Saturday.

And it's a humid grey Saturday, at that.

 

[SueDonJ]

This might have been answered before, but I still don't understand what are "B" votes.

Also- it doesn't make sense for each owner rather than each unit to get a vote, since some units are owned by a couple, some singly,and others by more than 2 family members. Each ownership should have a set number of votes ascribed to it, which may be 2, but then every other unit, regardless of the number of owners listed on the deed, should have the same number of votes.

Two-thousand four hundred sixty-three words less, but that's what I meant. I would really like to know the answer.

 

[ecwinch]

How so? They add up, and they match what Allan posted here and what Mark posted here.

I do have one question about the 230 A Share votes that Marriott exercised.

When we receive proxy forms, we are allowed only one vote on each matter. In other words, we don't vote twice just because we own jointly. It's stipulated in my paperwork for SurfWatch, that because we own jointly, we had to designate on a CERTIFICATE OF VOTING MEMBER form one of us as the person who would "... cast the vote for each Time Sharing Interest owned ... in all matters pertaining to the operation of the Association." The form included three provisions - (one) that we were not required to designate a voting Member, (two) that if we did not, and were present at a meeting but could not concur on a decision, we would lose our right to vote on that subject, and (three) that if we did not, and only one of us was at a meeting, that one could cast the vote.

That's why I question how Marriott could vote twice for each of the 115 units that were bought back. Is that correct as related, that they cast 230 A share votes for 115 units? More importantly, does Aruba Ocean Club have the same owner/vote setup that my US resort, SurfWatch, utilizes?

Now it doesn't matter for the purposes of the election results as related by those at the meeting, because even if Marriott was only entitled to 115 A share votes, the votes for Frank Knox (382 owner/proxy votes + 115 Marriott owner votes + 1500 Marriott management votes = 1997) still would have exceeded those for "Candidate A" (1034).

But it is something that could be looked at further to possibly challenge. The problem there would be, if each jointly-owned unit IS only designated one vote, that might open up the possibility that each jointly-owned unit is also only designated one "right" of any kind. Would that impact how many owners are necessary to file a petition, such as the one that could be filed to force an initiation of an ownership-wide vote? In other words, can you count a married couple as two persons toward the 10% of owners required for a petition? I have no idea - it's just something to think about, another question for an attorney.

And, it might very well be a total waste of time thinking about it, if Marriott actually bought back 230 units or if Aruban law about timeshare ownership specifies that two votes (or an equal number of votes as owners) are designated to each unit sold.

It is called cumulative voting. You get one vote for each open seat on the BoD. So with two positions open, you get two votes. You can either split the vote between two candidates, or cast them all for one candidate.

So for their 115 units, they got 230 votes.

 

[ecwinch]

It speaks to B votes but I cant find a number in the document.

What does it say in regard to the B votes then.

 

[ecwinch]

I forgot to mention this earlier.

But being pro-Marriott has really paid off so far. They really do live up to the their promises for those of us that are helping combat the OC renegades.

I am currently at the Marriott Streamside. I think I have the best unit in whole place. In the Evergreen building, overlooking the stream, and 50' from the hot tub.

It is good to be pro-Marriott. Plus I have picked up about six more pens. Just a couple of more stays, and I will have enough for the kids for school next year.

 

[modoaruba]

Except that Marriott's vote shares are limited to however many number of units they are holding as owners, and the 1,500 (I'm assuming that's a fixed number) management share votes. If enough owners were to participate in an election whereby Marriott's total votes alone, or in combination with owner votes, could not exceed the majority owners', then Marriott isn't guaranteed control.



As stated before,the true majority never votes.
Thats why it can't change.



And it's a humid grey Saturday, at that.

Yes it is. But you get up in the morning,look out the window and there is weather-I say you're ahead of the game

 

[modoaruba]

I forgot to mention this earlier.

But being pro-Marriott has really paid off so far. They really do live up to the their promises for those of us that are helping combat the OC renegades.

I am currently at the Marriott Streamside. I think I have the best unit in whole place. In the Evergreen building, overlooking the stream, and 50' from the hot tub.

It is good to be pro-Marriott. Plus I have picked up about six more pens. Just a couple of more stays, and I will have enough for the kids for school next year.

Just dropped your name at the Courtyard in Newark.
Got a room overlooking the prison. The elevator on one side of me and the ice machine on the other. NO PENS! No batteries in the remote. Thanks.

 

[ecwinch]

Just dropped your name at the Courtyard in Newark.
Got a room overlooking the prison. The elevator on one side of me and the ice machine on the other. NO PENS! No batteries in the remote. Thanks.

Silly wrabbit, You cannot fool the mighty Marriott. They know who the OC rebels are. Probably have a photo lineup of all of them....

And you probably gave yourself away by not giving the "I luv Marriott" secret handshake....

 

[SueDonJ]

I forgot to mention this earlier.

But being pro-Marriott has really paid off so far. They really do live up to the their promises for those of us that are helping combat the OC renegades.

I am currently at the Marriott Streamside. I think I have the best unit in whole place. In the Evergreen building, overlooking the stream, and 50' from the hot tub.

It is good to be pro-Marriott. Plus I have picked up about six more pens. Just a couple of more stays, and I will have enough for the kids for school next year.

I wondered, when my latest trip ended two weeks ago, how we ended up with the best units we could have gotten for two weeks in a row at two different resorts. At Barony we had the top-floor left-corner oceanfront, and at SurfWatch we had the top-floor right-corner oceanside. Fantastic!

I don't know if it's because of this thread, though. It's probably because we don't take the pens.

 

[SueDonJ]

It is called cumulative voting. You get one vote for each open seat on the BoD. So with two positions open, you get two votes. You can either split the vote between two candidates, or cast them all for one candidate.

So for their 115 units, they got 230 votes.

DOH! So it was a total waste of time thinking about it, but for a different reason. Figures.

 

[SueDonJ]

... being pro-Marriott has really paid off so far. ...I am currently at the Marriott Streamside. I think I have the best unit in whole place. ...

Just dropped your name at the Courtyard in Newark.
Got a room overlooking the prison. The elevator on one side of me and the ice machine on the other. NO PENS! No batteries in the remote. Thanks.

Silly wrabbit, You cannot fool the mighty Marriott. They know who the OC rebels are. Probably have a photo lineup of all of them....

And you probably gave yourself away by not giving the "I luv Marriott" secret handshake....

:hysterical: Love the "NO PENS!"

 

[ecwinch]

I wondered, when my latest trip ended two weeks ago, how we ended up with the best units we could have gotten for two weeks in a row at two different resorts. At Barony we had the top-floor left-corner oceanfront, and at SurfWatch we had the top-floor right-corner oceanside. Fantastic!

I don't know if it's because of this thread, though. It's probably because we don't take the pens.

It's the thread. I always take the pens....

I bet if you call MVCI and ask, they will tell you that you have a big smiley face on your account.... and FOB status (Friends of Bill).

 

[modoaruba]

Silly wrabbit, You cannot fool the mighty Marriott. They know who the OC rebels are. Probably have a photo lineup of all of them....

And you probably gave yourself away by not giving the "I luv Marriott" secret handshake....

Who you calling a rebel?
Know what happened last time when someone said "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"?
(Rebels know secrets.shhh)

 

[Dean]

Marriott should absolutely get a vote for any units they own. That isnt what happened in the most recent elections however. They voted on B shares, something they have never done before . Not only did they get a vote with the A shares(which are ownership shares) but also with the B shares. The "developer"(Marriott) allocated 1500 B shares to Marriott(thenselves). These shares are connected to the "common facilities not exclusively by A share members" Im not sure of the number of units Marriott purchased back in contemplation of the election but as an example: If they bought back 100 units. They would have 100 A share votes , but by voting the B shares(if that is held to be ac'd to the intent and spirit of the bylaws) they would have an additional 1500 votes.

Whether they've voted them previously means nothing. All that matters is whether they have the right to vote the B shares. It seems that those with the documents aren't sure.