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

[Dean]

Great point.

Disagree on the last point though. I think faced with a militant BoD that is suing, they would use the termination provision. Common practice in litigation.

I would agree they would walk away if they feel needed and justified but the more likely option is to just let it expire. Thus I agree either is an option but lack of renewal is by far the larger risk of the 2. While there may be an exception, I don't know off hand of any of the other options where they canceled an existing contract midstream. I do think there were threats of that though for Beachplace during the recent conflict there. I assume that everyone knows that the management company owns the reservation software, etc and not the resort or owners.

 

[lovearuba]

Transparency

And I do not stand with MVCI. I stand against the splinter group that wants to take control of the resort. Allowing a disgruntled former BoD President whose feelings got hurt, to abuse his position and secretly support a militant faction is a violation of his fiduciary responsibilities, IMO. It poisons the whole crusade.

I have to disagree with you. I thinks its unfair for folks to assume that getting transparency with what decisions are being made and what information should be made available to the owners of the resort has anything to do with people abusing their power. There is no secret militant faction doing anything but standing up for themselves and their interest in their investment at the ocean club. I am sorry if you feel that your resort was affected by the actions of the group wanting transparency. The only secrecy is with Marriott not telling us what we have a right to know.

It would worry me if I were you to think that Marriott is so afraid of exposure that they would limit communication with your BOD, you for one should be fighting to change that rather than being complacent and just complaining rather than taking action. We choose to fight for what we believe in, your choice is obviously different. Thus, the difference of opinion in our right to fight for a just cause.

 

[ecwinch]

I have to disagree with you. I thinks its unfair for folks to assume that getting transparency with what decisions are being made and what information should be made available to the owners of the resort has anything to do with people abusing their power. There is no secret militant faction doing anything but standing up for themselves and their interest in their investment at the ocean club. I am sorry if you feel that your resort was affected by the actions of the group wanting transparency. The only secrecy is with Marriott not telling us what we have a right to know.

It would worry me if I were you to think that Marriott is so afraid of exposure that they would limit communication with your BOD, you for one should be fighting to change that rather than being complacent and just complaining rather than taking action. We choose to fight for what we believe in, your choice is obviously different. Thus, the difference of opinion in our right to fight for a just cause.

I do feel that at one time this crusade was actually about transparency. I think that time has passed.

But I want to keep an open mind, what steps should the BoD of the AOC take to provide you with the transparency you want?

In their last letter, they seemed to provide considerable information and the engineering report. As noted, they have issued numerous communications in regard to the concerns of the owners.

What more would you ask them to do, in order to operate in a more transparent matter? Keeping in mind that the threat of a lawsuit does constrain them in some regard.

You have received about 10 times the communication I receive from any of my resorts (both MVCI and not).

 

[marksue]

I do feel that at one time this crusade was actually about transparency. I think that time has passed.

But I want to keep an open mind, what steps should the BoD of the AOC take to provide you with the transparency you want?

In their last letter, they seemed to provide considerable information and the engineering report. As noted, they have issued numerous communications in regard to the concerns of the owners.

What more would you ask them to do, in order to operate in a more transparent matter? Keeping in mind that the threat of a lawsuit does constrain them in some regard.

You have received about 10 times the communication I receive from any of my resorts (both MVCI and not).[/QUOTE

The bod and Marriott have refused to release all the engineering and mold inspection reports. They have not answered the questions of the owners, which has been posted here many times.

You can think what you want; Allan did not release anything to me that was confidential. He shared with me everything he shared with anyone that asked him regarding property I had ownership in. At least he was willing to talk to owners which is more than I can say for the current board.

There is no transparency with the bod unless the group of owners sends out emails to mvci and Marriott. Then we get an email from them. This issue is about the lack of transparency and wanting a board that will fight for the owners and be open and honest with us.

We do have a lawyer that is doing everything that he needs to. You don’t have to believe we have a lawyer but we do and he is hard at work. Unfortunately the process is slow but we are making progress.

 

[ecwinch]

I do feel that at one time this crusade was actually about transparency. I think that time has passed.

But I want to keep an open mind, what steps should the BoD of the AOC take to provide you with the transparency you want? Please do not just say "be more transparent". What specifically do you expect a new BoD to do?

In their last letter, they seemed to provide considerable information and the engineering report. As noted, they have issued numerous communications in regard to the concerns of the owners.

What more would you ask them to do, in order to operate in a more transparent matter? Keeping in mind that the threat of a lawsuit does constrain them in some regard.

You have received about 10 times the communication I receive from any of my resorts (both MVCI and not).[/QUOTE

The bod and Marriott have refused to release all the engineering and mold inspection reports. They have not answered the questions of the owners, which has been posted here many times.

You can think what you want; Allan did not release anything to me that was confidential. He shared with me everything he shared with anyone that asked him regarding property I had ownership in. At least he was willing to talk to owners which is more than I can say for the current board.

There is no transparency with the bod unless the group of owners sends out emails to mvci and Marriott. Then we get an email from them. This issue is about the lack of transparency and wanting a board that will fight for the owners and be open and honest with us.

We do have a lawyer that is doing everything that he needs to. You don’t have to believe we have a lawyer but we do and he is hard at work. Unfortunately the process is slow but we are making progress.

Not clear how you think transparency is supposed to work. You ask a question, and you get an answer.

You keep throwing the "transparency" label around. What are they failing to do, that you would expect an "owner friendly" BoD to do?

Given the legal action you have threaten them with, I think that they are withholding the reports is a natural event. But what is the difference between the reports they have issued, and the reports that you want them to issue?

Can you e-mail me documentation of the questions that were asked of them and that they refused to answer? Did you follow-up on the request? Obviously I am not an owner, and you do not need to do this. But if you wish to silence the critics, it would help. And it does not need to be me.

Do your by-laws contain a provision to inspect the records of the association? If so, have you made a formal request to conduct an inspection of those records, in particular the reports that you are seeking?

We can disagree on the information leak issue. I think the record on that issue speaks for itself. I understand that you feel it was information that you had a right to, and that justified the act. I am not in agreement with that opinion, nor is it supported by corporate governance standards.

 

[Luckybee]

While I wont begin to hash over again the many things imho I think this board is doing that shows a lack of transparency and a direct intention to prevent owners from knowing all let me give you one recent example. I just received today the letter that some owners had previously mentioned about the release of info . The letter from the BOD leaves the impression if you didnt know better that a unnamed owner and lawyer has requested names and addresses of owners for some unscrupulous purpose and that Marriott and the board in it's efforts to protect the owners wants you to indicate that you dont want your info released. While I recognize that there are privacy interests to be protected should they not have advised the owners why the info was being requested so that the owner could decide for themselves whether they wanted to receive the material from the lawyer. Quite frankly my dh and I were astounded by how misleading this correspondence was. Without question if you didnt know anything about what was happening you were left with the impression that the material was being requested for marketing purposes and of course you would ask that Marriott hold off on providing your data. No where in the correspondence was there any mention of the reason for the request, or the nature of the ongoing issues. Simply put the letter was rather bizarre !
You may perhaps disagree but imho this isnt right and it is another attempt by the board to hide info from the owners. Why not let the owners determine for themselves which side of the fence they wish to be on?

 

[modoaruba]

I am in agreement with luckybee.
If I did not know about this board nor have ever spoken to Allan,the letter received from Marriott is very vague and misleading.

 

[ecwinch]

While I wont begin to hash over again the many things imho I think this board is doing that shows a lack of transparency and a direct intention to prevent owners from knowing all let me give you one recent example. I just received today the letter that some owners had previously mentioned about the release of info . The letter from the BOD leaves the impression if you didnt know better that a unnamed owner and lawyer has requested names and addresses of owners for some unscrupulous purpose and that Marriott and the board in it's efforts to protect the owners wants you to indicate that you dont want your info released. While I recognize that there are privacy interests to be protected should they not have advised the owners why the info was being requested so that the owner could decide for themselves whether they wanted to receive the material from the lawyer. Quite frankly my dh and I were astounded by how misleading this correspondence was. Without question if you didnt know anything about what was happening you were left with the impression that the material was being requested for marketing purposes and of course you would ask that Marriott hold off on providing your data. No where in the correspondence was there any mention of the reason for the request, or the nature of the ongoing issues. Simply put the letter was rather bizarre !
You may perhaps disagree but imho this isnt right and it is another attempt by the board to hide info from the owners. Why not let the owners determine for themselves which side of the fence they wish to be on?

I am not trying to demean this statement or put words in your mouth.

So when you say "transparency", it sounds to me that you mean some moral standard they should strive for. Not any specific action, like "publish BoD minutes", "regular communication", or "allowing owners to speak at BoD meetings". A guiding principle of sorts. Which is fine, but is extremely subjective without specific guidelines on how that should govern their actions.

Because, while I understand your opinion regarding the letter you discuss, I think it is reasonable to deduce that you read it with the bias of your position and your knowledge of the crusade.

Likewise, I think you can see that the BoD is asking how you would like them to protect your privacy information. And the response will set forth the BoD's policy for all future requests, not just the one at hand.

Of course you would consent to the release to Mark's group.

But what happens when what they describe happens. When owners start getting marketing material from PCC's, and it gets traced back to a request for the AOC members list? Sure some will go - "I get that now". But some people get very hostile about such things.

You see it as an attempt to "scare" owners into not consenting to release their info. It very well be. But it also represents the BoD being diligent in informing members of the consequences of their decision.

And to the question of should they clearly state that Mark has made the request, his reason for doing so, and such. I do not think so. I suspect the lawyers would have prevented that information from being provided.

I do agree that the letter should be balanced. A paragraph stating that "by declining, members will not able to be contacted by other members regarding association business"

But maybe that is there, or something similar.

 

[Luckybee]

No actually I do want other things but I didnt see the point in getting into the same old same old again ! For starters I want to have the ability to contact a board member if I have a problem with my resort not the GM. Let me tell you why. A number of years ago dh and I had a specific problem while at the resort. It was not handled well by onsite management. When we got home we contacted Mr Cohen who followed up with Marriott for us and the issue was immediately dealt with. The GM at the time had not followed up at all as he said he would have. As I said I could go on and on about what I'd like to see but that wasnt my point in this post.

The letter should definitely have been balanced. It wasnt without doubt. Here is what it said(excuse the typos if any) (the bolding and underlines are the way the letter looked not my emphasis):

Dear MAOC owner

As you may know on May 15 2009, the Annual General Membership meeting of the cooperative Vereniging Marriott Vacation Club international of Aruba (the association) was held and three board members were elected. The draft annual meeting minutes have been posted on the resort page of my vacation club.com as well as our dedicated website arubaoceanclub.com. Since then , we have been working diligently on several important issues.

The board has the duty to inform you of the following development that requires your urgent attention .

An individual member has recently instructed an attorney in Aruba to notify the association of the members intention to sue the association before the court in Aruba if the board does not provide all of the names and personal correspondence addresses of the associations 8570 members to this individual member or his attorney . The board has the duty to consider all possible scenarios and is very reluctant to provide to provide your personal information such as name and personal addresses ( as currently on file) in light of possible misuse of such information, privacy considerations, and the real possibility of the personal information of our 8570 members getting into the hands of, for example , telemarketers or the personal information being improperly handled or distributed .

While privacy laws in the United States may protect your personal information from being made public, the board has to take into account that the association may be compelled by an Aruban court to release and transfer members personal data. For this reason, we are giving you the opportunity(by means of checking a box and signing the attached declaration), to indicate whether or not you authorize or do not authorize having your personal data as described above shared with individual members who may request your personal information. If you do not want your information shared with individual members, please check the appropriate box on the attached declaration and we will try, as much as possible to honour your request.

Sincerely,

Your board members
(signed, again without contact info)

Now tell me would it have truly been that difficult to add something such as "for issues pertaining to the resort" after an individual member has contacted the association to obtain the list, or some similiar such wording. Again you may not agree but I have shown this letter to a number people today , none of whom were aware of this situation and they all had the same impression as did I , that is that the letter seems to indicate that the board is attempting to shield the members from some untoward(fraudulent or otherwise) activity. No one got the impression that the request had anything to do with ownership interest issues. I hate to use the words scare tactics as I personally think those are words that should go into the list of overused words in Northa America but this is one situation where I truly think it is the only appropriate phrase.

 

[SueDonJ]

No actually I do want other things but I didnt see the point in getting into the same old same old again ! For starters I want to have the ability to contact a board member if I have a problem with my resort not the GM. Let me tell you why. A number of years ago dh and I had a specific problem while at the resort. It was not handled well by onsite management. When we got home we contacted Mr Cohen who followed up with Marriott for us and the issue was immediately dealt with. The GM at the time had not followed up at all as he said he would have. As I said I could go on and on about what I'd like to see but that wasnt my point in this post.

The letter should definitely have been balanced. It wasnt without doubt. Here is what it said(excuse the typos if any) (the bolding and underlines are the way the letter looked not my emphasis):

Dear MAOC owner

As you may know on May 15 2009, the Annual General Membership meeting of the cooperative Vereniging Marriott Vacation Club international of Aruba (the association) was held and three board members were elected. The draft annual meeting minutes have been posted on the resort page of my vacation club.com as well as our dedicated website arubaoceanclub.com. Since then , we have been working diligently on several important issues.

The board has the duty to inform you of the following development that requires your urgent attention .

An individual member has recently instructed an attorney in Aruba to notify the association of the members intention to sue the association before the court in Aruba if the board does not provide all of the names and personal correspondence addresses of the associations 8570 members to this individual member or his attorney . The board has the duty to consider all possible scenarios and is very reluctant to provide to provide your personal information such as name and personal addresses ( as currently on file) in light of possible misuse of such information, privacy considerations, and the real possibility of the personal information of our 8570 members getting into the hands of, for example , telemarketers or the personal information being improperly handled or distributed .

While privacy laws in the United States may protect your personal information from being made public, the board has to take into account that the association may be compelled by an Aruban court to release and transfer members personal data. For this reason, we are giving you the opportunity(by means of checking a box and signing the attached declaration), to indicate whether or not you authorize or do not authorize having your personal data as described above shared with individual members who may request your personal information. If you do not want your information shared with individual members, please check the appropriate box on the attached declaration and we will try, as much as possible to honour your request.

Sincerely,

Your board members
(signed, again without contact info)

Now tell me would it have truly been that difficult to add something such as "for issues pertaining to the resort" after an individual member has contacted the association to obtain the list, or some similiar such wording. Again you may not agree but I have shown this letter to a number people today , none of whom were aware of this situation and they all had the same impression as did I , that is that the letter seems to indicate that the board is attempting to shield the members from some untoward(fraudulent or otherwise) activity. No one got the impression that the request had anything to do with ownership interest issues. I hate to use the words scare tactics as I personally think those are words that should go into the list of overused words in Northa America but this is one situation where I truly think it is the only appropriate phrase.

Consider the risk that the BOD would be assuming if they did include even your generic, "for issues pertaining to the resort" and the owners made a determination based on that to allow the release of their information. But then at some point down the road - months? years? doesn't matter - by some accidental or malicious action, the list is released to someone who uses it for something not related to, "issues pertaining to the resort?"

Can't you envision the slightest possibility of that happening? I can. And if it does, then what level of risk would the BOD have assumed by stating in that letter that the list will be released only, "for issues pertaining to the resort?"

I completely understand the deliberate omission of the reason that the owners' information has been requested, as well as the deliberate warnings of the consequences that could result from the owners' information being released. The BOD is protecting itself as best it can in the event of any future related legal issues, those that are apparent and those that are not. That's what I would expect anyway, but considering the history at this specific resort, I would be shocked if the letter was any different.

 

[modoaruba]

Consider the risk that the BOD would be assuming if they did include even your generic, "for issues pertaining to the resort" and the owners made a determination based on that to allow the release of their information. But then at some point down the road - months? years? doesn't matter - by some accidental or malicious action, the list is released to someone who uses it for something not related to, "issues pertaining to the resort?"

Can't you envision the slightest possibility of that happening? I can. And if it does, then what level of risk would the BOD have assumed by stating in that letter that the list will be released only, "for issues pertaining to the resort?"

I completely understand the deliberate omission of the reason that the owners' information has been requested, as well as the deliberate warnings of the consequences that could result from the owners' information being released. The BOD is protecting itself as best it can in the event of any future related legal issues, those that are apparent and those that are not. That's what I would expect anyway, but considering the history at this specific resort, I would be shocked if the letter was any different.

I remember a few years ago the front desk or Marriott(I do not recall) compromised our credit cards.
Can any body else recall the exact specifics?

The point being,what on earth could the list given to this group be done with to be so diabolical?

The credit card issue was resolved after I got a call from VISA that my physical card was being used in Venezuela.Obviously it was a forgery.
Here was a definite risk of identity theft.The risk is not present by obtaining a list of owners.

 

[Luckybee]

(sorry this was in response to Sue but I didnt post fast enough ))
Ok I'll bite. If I accept your arguement(which I dont because I believe this wording was done in a way to intentionally be misleading to give Marriott ammunition wwhen they go into court to be able to say "all our members signed that they didnt want the info divulged) but lets just say I accept your argument . There are ways of handling that too. For example "this request is being made for issues pertaining to the resort but we cannot guarantee that misuse would not be made of the information in the future" or something similiar. At least then they would not be leaving the wrong impression in the first place . I also think that if a court does order the release of the info this letter isnt going to protect Marriott because a judge would find that the letter offends the spirit of an honest and fair attempt to ascertain the owners wishes.

 

[Luckybee]

I remember a few years ago the front desk or Marriott(I do not recall) compromised our credit cards.
Can any body else recall the exact specifics?

The point being,what on earth could the list given to this group be done with to be so diabolical?

The credit card issue was resolved after I got a call from VISA that my physical card was being used in Venezuela.Obviously it was a forgery.
Here was a definite risk of identity theft.The risk is not present by obtaining a list of owners.

Yep Marriott "lost" thousands of owners computer info including names, addresses, loan info, bankiand most importantly credit card numbers, and security codesetc. They provided identity protection for a year (I think a year?) to those owners who were compromised.

 

[SueDonJ]

I remember a few years ago the front desk or Marriott(I do not recall) compromised our credit cards.
Can any body else recall the exact specifics?

The point being,what on earth could the list given to this group be done with to be so diabolical?

The credit card issue was resolved after I got a call from VISA that my physical card was being used in Venezuela.Obviously it was a forgery.
Here was a definite risk of identity theft.The risk is not present by obtaining a list of owners.

I don't remember anything with Marriott, but a few years ago our debit card (with VISA logo) information was compromised, along with a couple thousand others, by BJ's Wholesale Club when an employee hacked into the system and sold the info. We didn't know it until the bank called to tell us that there had been suspicious out-of-state charges over the last two days totalling $3K-plus. The bank had us file a report with the local police dept and fill out some forms, then credited our account for all of the fraudulent charges. A couple months later the police contacted us to tell us that a criminal complaint was being filed against the former BJ's employee, and we should notify BJ's in writing of our experience because our case was probably related. We did, and never heard another word about it.

My point is, we are as much protected by privacy laws (which allow for relatively simple credits of fraudulent charges and cross-referencing fraudulent complaints) as we are hindered by them. Companies can only take so many steps to protect our personal and financial data from getting into the wrong hands. No matter how much they do, the bad guys manage to circumvent all the protections and wreak havoc anyway. It's a sad commentary on the world we live in, sure, but because of the bad guys it's necessary to have privacy laws. And as long as we do, any company has no choice but to follow them. The fallout, though, means that what's been legislated to protect us can also make what appears to be very simple, very difficult.

 

[ecwinch]

I remember a few years ago the front desk or Marriott(I do not recall) compromised our credit cards.
Can any body else recall the exact specifics?

The point being,what on earth could the list given to this group be done with to be so diabolical?

The credit card issue was resolved after I got a call from VISA that my physical card was being used in Venezuela.Obviously it was a forgery.
Here was a definite risk of identity theft.The risk is not present by obtaining a list of owners.

I respect and value your opinion, but I do not understand how the prior compromise lessens the responsibility of the AOC BoD to protect your information.

The BoD is forced to set and establish policies to deal with the current request, and all future requests. They cannot grant Mark's request, and then arbitratraley refuse the next one.

They do not have a reduced fiduciary responsibility to the members simply because you agree with the group making the request.

 

[SueDonJ]

(sorry this was in response to Sue but I didnt post fast enough ))
Ok I'll bite. If I accept your arguement(which I dont because I believe this wording was done in a way to intentionally be misleading to give Marriott ammunition wwhen they go into court to be able to say "all our members signed that they didnt want the info divulged) but lets just say I accept your argument . There are ways of handling that too. For example "this request is being made for issues pertaining to the resort but we cannot guarantee that misuse would not be made of the information in the future" or something similiar. At least then they would not be leaving the wrong impression in the first place . I also think that if a court does order the release of the info this letter isnt going to protect Marriott because a judge would find that the letter offends the spirit of an honest and fair attempt to ascertain the owners wishes.

Except it may be possible that the BOD suffers under some other constraint that would prohibit them from telling the ownership the reason the request has been made. I don't know, which is why I wouldn't automatically assume that their reason for the tone of the letter is to threaten the ownership and/or subvert Allan's request.

I do agree, though, that checking the box and signing the declaration letter may not protect against the owners information being released if court-ordered, but maybe for a different reason than you think. If it's any consolation, the "... and we will try, as much as possible to honour your request. ..." phrase contained in the BOD's letter makes me think that they're not entirely sure either. Or, that's just another tactic to cover themselves.

 

[ecwinch]

No actually I do want other things but I didnt see the point in getting into the same old same old again ! For starters I want to have the ability to contact a board member if I have a problem with my resort not the GM. Let me tell you why. A number of years ago dh and I had a specific problem while at the resort. It was not handled well by onsite management. When we got home we contacted Mr Cohen who followed up with Marriott for us and the issue was immediately dealt with. The GM at the time had not followed up at all as he said he would have. As I said I could go on and on about what I'd like to see but that wasnt my point in this post.

I think we now are getting to the core of some of the issues. Let me offer one explaination:

I think part of this goes to your expectation of how you view the duties and obligations of a member of the BoD. In the example you cited, Mr Cohen acted as your personal ombudsmen in resolving an issue regarding an issue at the resort.

Step back for a moment. What was the legal basis for Mr Cohen's actions? Is he empowered by the by-laws of the AOC to unilaterally investigate and seek resolutions of a members issues?

Here is the Wikipedia definition of a BoD. I use it because it is accessible, not because it is authorative:

A board of directors is a body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization. The body sometimes has a different name, such as board of trustees, board of governors, board of managers, or executive board. It is often simply referred to as "the board."
A board's activities are determined by the powers, duties, and responsibilities delegated to it or conferred on it by an authority outside itself. These matters are typically detailed in the organization's bylaws. The bylaws commonly also specify the number of members of the board, how they are to be chosen, and when they are to meet.

Notice one thing major thing in the definition that I highlighted. "Jointly".

A BoD is supposed to act in concert. Being a BoD member does not grant a license to dictate anything to the GM of the resort. If there was a problem, and the policy/procedure of the AOC was not being properly adhered to, then that is business for the BoD to address. Mr. Cohen has no authority to act unilaterally in such a manner, unless you can provide me with the specific provision of your by-laws that grants each member of the BoD that authority.

BoD's have to work jointly. This example just reinforces my opinion that Mr. Cohen felt that his authority was far greater than what it was.

Individual BoD members do not run the resort. They set the procedures and policies of the resort, that MVCI follows in the resort operation.

This the same reason that you cannot communicate directly with a BoD member in an official capacity, without that communication being recorded by the BoD. Imagine the liability the BoD would incur if they permitted such communication.

You could report illegal activity at the resort to an individual BoD member, and that BoD member could, either purposedly or unintentional, fail to act on your report Maybe they are involved. But their failure to act, creates the grounds for the HOA to be sued. That is not a viable process.

It also creates an opportunity for a rogue BoD member to exceed his authority and inject himself into the day-to-day operations of the resort. If you set the precedent of that being permissable, keep in mind where it can be used to harm you also. And what if the rest of the BoD disagreed with the action of one member. How do you address that?

 

[Dean]

Except it may be possible that the BOD suffers under some other constraint that would prohibit them from telling the ownership the reason the request has been made. I don't know, which is why I wouldn't automatically assume that their reason for the tone of the letter is to threaten the ownership and/or subvert Allan's request.

I do agree, though, that checking the box and signing the declaration letter may not protect against the owners information being released if court-ordered, but maybe for a different reason than you think. If it's any consolation, the "... and we will try, as much as possible to honour your request. ..." phrase contained in the BOD's letter makes me think that they're not entirely sure either. Or, that's just another tactic to cover themselves.

Looking at a legal challenge to the resort, MVCI and the current BOD; they need to be very careful with anything they send out. It's likely everything is reviewed by lawyers prior to being sent out and in this case, even more so than normal. They are not going to try to do justice to the other side, they are going to word things in such a way as to garner the support of the owners for their position and against the opposition.

Also as Eric noted, "more transparency" is a vague statement that ultimately has no meaning. You have to lay out specific items of how to be more transparent. As I noted before, I doubt any of such changes would satisfy those complaining at this point. Also, even if a totally new BOD is seated, it's unlikely it'll be a group and in such a way that those complaining will truly be satisfied. IF Marriott remains involved, they will control the process for any changes as well.

 

[modoaruba]

I respect and value your opinion, but I do not understand how the prior compromise lessens the responsibility of the AOC BoD to protect your information.

The BoD is forced to set and establish policies to deal with the current request, and all future requests. They cannot grant Mark's request, and then arbitratraley refuse the next one.

They do not have a reduced fiduciary responsibility to the members simply because you agree with the group making the request.

The comparison was made not to justify the request but to minimize it's potential intent in the scheme of things.
If anybody read the letter without prior knowledge,how would it be taken?

(task for today--show the letter to a friend,family member,coworker,etc.
in other words,someone who doesn't know what Marriott or Aruba is,and let them tell you what the letter says to them).

I am not taking sides here,but think that the request is fair and by Marriott sending this letter shows the intent of diverting the attention away from the transparancy this group hopes to accomplish.

 

[ecwinch]

And in the example you cite, I think you are asking for accessibility, not transparency. I have yet to hear what they can do to provide more transparency.

Significant distinction.

 

[ecwinch]

(task for today--show the letter to a friend,family member,coworker,etc.
in other words,someone who doesn't know what Marriott or Aruba is,and let them tell you what the letter says to them).

I am not taking sides here,but think that the request is fair and by Marriott sending this letter shows the intent of diverting the attention away from the transparancy this group hopes to accomplish.

After you ask them what it says, then ask them if they think the letter is an attempt by the board to be less transparent in their operation.

Why do you think the statement about potential outcomes that they make is inaccurate?

I think certain people are reading into the letter that the BoD is saying - "look if we give Mark the list, he will give it to telemarketers".

They do not say that. YOU are making that assertion.

Look the part " The board has the duty to consider all possible scenarios "

 

[Luckybee]

I think we now are getting to the core of some of the issues. Let me offer one explaination:

I think part of this goes to your expectation of how you view the duties and obligations of a member of the BoD. In the example you cited, Mr Cohen acted as your personal ombudsmen in resolving an issue regarding an issue at the resort.

Step back for a moment. What was the legal basis for Mr Cohen's actions? Is he empowered by the by-laws of the AOC to unilaterally investigate and seek resolutions of a members issues?

Here is the Wikipedia definition of a BoD. I use it because it is accessible, not because it is authorative:

A board of directors is a body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization. The body sometimes has a different name, such as board of trustees, board of governors, board of managers, or executive board. It is often simply referred to as "the board."
A board's activities are determined by the powers, duties, and responsibilities delegated to it or conferred on it by an authority outside itself. These matters are typically detailed in the organization's bylaws. The bylaws commonly also specify the number of members of the board, how they are to be chosen, and when they are to meet.

Notice one thing major thing in the definition that I highlighted. "Jointly".

A BoD is supposed to act in concert. Being a BoD member does not grant a license to dictate anything to the GM of the resort. If there was a problem, and the policy/procedure of the AOC was not being properly adhered to, then that is business for the BoD to address. Mr. Cohen has no authority to act unilaterally in such a manner, unless you can provide me with the specific provision of your by-laws that grants each member of the BoD that authority.

BoD's have to work jointly. This example just reinforces my opinion that Mr. Cohen felt that his authority was far greater than what it was.

Individual BoD members do not run the resort. They set the procedures and policies of the resort, that MVCI follows in the resort operation.

This the same reason that you cannot communicate directly with a BoD member in an official capacity, without that communication being recorded by the BoD. Imagine the liability the BoD would incur if they permitted such communication.

You could report illegal activity at the resort to an individual BoD member, and that BoD member could, either purposedly or unintentional, fail to act on your report Maybe they are involved. But their failure to act, creates the grounds for the HOA to be sued. That is not a viable process.

It also creates an opportunity for a rogue BoD member to exceed his authority and inject himself into the day-to-day operations of the resort. If you set the precedent of that being permissable, keep in mind where it can be used to harm you also. And what if the rest of the BoD disagreed with the action of one member. How do you address that?

Well than I guess Marriott was acting without authority as welll when they use to say "please feel free to contact any of your elected board members for any issues you may have regarding your resort experience " Funny how when it worked for them that is exactly what they wanted and then when it didnt ie: they were no longer getting positive feedback about evrything they were doing then the cloak of silence went up. Allan used to liase with Marriott over numerous issues on behalf on the owners. Marriott wanted it that way so that they werent getting calls from ea individual owner. The other bod members actually wanted it that way as well. Funny how it use to work for hmmm lets see...every year since the property opened until he decided to question the actions of Marriott

But you have me doing exactly what I said I wouldnt and that is rehash the same stuff....I see no purpose in doing so...on those issues I prefer to wait and see what comes out of the case

 

[modoaruba]

And in the example you cite, I think you are asking for accessibility, not transparency. I have yet to hear what they can do to provide more transparency.

Significant distinction.

Transparancy might not be the entire propper terminology to use. But I would think that any party that we give money to to run our property,should be forefront with what they plan to do,how they will do it and at what cost.
If issues come up such as the roof, I expect any report made by any party to be given to me.
In other words I want an honest and open and accessable BOD that I can rely on to do the right thing with our monies.
When you ask what more they can do,well,they can reveal the studies that were conducted on the roof and mold issues.
If all the studies were shown to be that no problems exist,so be it.
Don't I have a right as an owner to know how my property is doing?
The BOD represents me. I should be entitled to communicate directly with them.
The GM and staff are my employees.They are not my representatives.

All that is wanted is assurance that the right thing is being done The openess would allow checks and balances to assure that everything runs kosher.

 

[SueDonJ]

Transparancy might not be the entire propper terminology to use. But I would think that any party that we give money to to run our property,should be forefront with what they plan to do,how they will do it and at what cost.
If issues come up such as the roof, I expect any report made by any party to be given to me.
In other words I want an honest and open and accessable BOD that I can rely on to do the right thing with our monies.
When you ask what more they can do,well,they can reveal the studies that were conducted on the roof and mold issues.
If all the studies were shown to be that no problems exist,so be it.
Don't I have a right as an owner to know how my property is doing?
The BOD represents me. I should be entitled to communicate directly with them.
The GM and staff are my employees.They are not my representatives.

All that is wanted is assurance that the right thing is being done The openess would allow checks and balances to assure that everything runs kosher.

But the BOD was elected to perform certain functions, among them I would think is the review of such things as those roof and mold reports, and then vote among themselves as to what actions should be taken as a result of their review. If you did have access to everything the same as the BOD, what would you be authorized to do with it? Nothing, really, except maybe let your BOD know what your opinion is and ask them to act with your opinion in mind. You've agreed to the system in place whereby the BOD represents the ownership by virtue of your purchase, haven't you?

As far as communicating directly with the BOD, I don't understand why you folks maintain that you can't. Granted, you don't have access to the individual member's email addresses or telephone numbers, but you do have an email address which has been established for the sole purpose of owner/BOD communication. Granted, again, your BOD is constrained by the previous legal threats against them as to what they may be able to discuss, at least until all of these issues are resolved, but there's no reason why any owners shouldn't be able to use that email address to contact the BOD with an unrelated concern similar to the one Luckybee mentioned here.

 

[lovearuba]

After you ask them what it says, then ask them if they think the letter is an attempt by the board to be less transparent in their operation.

Why do you think the statement about potential outcomes that they make is inaccurate?

I think certain people are reading into the letter that the BoD is saying - "look if we give Mark the list, he will give it to telemarketers".

They do not say that. YOU are making that assertion.

Look the part " The board has the duty to consider all possible scenarios "

Marriott knows who requested the information and should have been upfront and stated it. They intentionally left it out to serve their own needs. It was an intentional effort to delay the effort and its not the end of the story. Marriott is deceitful, dishonest and has no regard for owners, just the almighty dollar.