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

[ecwinch]

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

This is just your bias coming through. Policies and procedures of organizations change all the time. Organizations recognize problems, and make changes according. It is part of the ever-changing world we live in. Allan, by his actions was a problem, for the reasons I outlined.

HOA Governance standards are evolving all the time. It is a relatively new field in corporate law. Many issues are those of first impression.

I note you fail to even address one of the points I made. It is disappointing when you fail to ignore all the logic that does not support your one-sided view of the world.

So you do not want a BoD member, you want a ombudsmen.

 

[ecwinch]

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.

I think you have the right to all the documents regarding the resort. What was the response they gave YOU when YOU asked for them?

In replying, please only tell me what you have done, OR the written response from AOC/MVCI that you have seen on this issue from a request from another member. No heresy.

I absolutely think you have the right to communicate with your BoD. But I fail to understand how their policy of asking that communication be forwarded to the AOC GM impedes that right.

I see this as an efficient utilization of resources. You see it as MVCI filtering communication with the BoD. Why do you assume that none of the correspondence for the BoD reaches them?

Yes, this is a change in policy. But tell me why - given my previous points - it is wrong or incorrect.

 

[ecwinch]

Follow-on:

Obviously you have the right to communicate with your US Representative to the House, right?

Now when you send him an e-mail, do you think he reads each and every one?

Or does a staffer?

If the staffer resolves your question, without getting the Representative involved, is that a violation of your right to communicate with your Representative?

How is this any different?

Beyond the fact that BoD standards have changed a lot in the last 10 years. BoD have far more responsibility and liability under recent governance statutes. Change happens.

 

[modoaruba]

I think you have the right to all the documents regarding the resort. What was the response they gave YOU when YOU asked for them?

In replying, please only tell me what you have done, OR the written response from AOC/MVCI that you have seen on this issue from a request from another member. No heresy.

I absolutely think you have the right to communicate with your BoD. But I fail to understand how their policy of asking that communication be forwarded to the AOC GM impedes that right.

I see this as an efficient utilization of resources. You see it as MVCI filtering communication with the BoD. Why do you assume that none of the correspondence for the BoD reaches them?

Yes, this is a change in policy. But tell me why - given my previous points - it is wrong or incorrect.

I have never asked the BOD of anything.
I am just bringing to light what others have posted regarding their concerns with no communication to THEM.
When I use the word I,I'm implying any owner.
It seems the letter we got from Allan regarding many concerns,that no answers were given as to why it is this way from Marriott nor the BOD.
By answers I do not mean what owners want to hear,but any honest answer.

 

[ecwinch]

I have never asked the BOD of anything.
I am just bringing to light what others have posted regarding their concerns with no communication to THEM.
When I use the word I,I'm implying any owner.
It seems the letter we got from Allan regarding many concerns,that no answers were given as to why it is this way from Marriott nor the BOD.
By answers I do not mean what owners want to hear,but any honest answer.

If you have not personally experienced this, or do not have firm evidence that supports the accounts of the other posters, how do you know it to be true?

And not embellished to solicit your support?

Do you know that Allan sent the letter to MVCI and the AOC?

Is it possible that he wrote if for the consumption of those here on TUG, and the BoD or MVCI has never seen it? Or that he has received a reply.

And if you are interested in the answer to the questions he posed, then why not send the same letter? Or a letter asking for the BoD response to his letter? Everytime I asked to see the proof, I got "he does not have to give you anything, you do not own there".

I would personally require a higher standard in regard to authenicating the statements of others. Particularly on an issue that is so important.

The BoD members are owners also. Why would they seek out BoD office, and then fail to protect the interests of the same group they belong to? In essence taking actions that will hurt them. For they will not be BoD members forever.

I think some fell too easy for this notion that the BoD is only interested in protecting MVCI.

 

[modoaruba]

If you have not personally experienced this, or do not have firm evidence that supports the accounts of the other posters, how do you know it to be true?

And not embellished to solicit your support?

Do you know that Allan sent the letter to MVCI and the AOC?

Is it possible that he wrote if for the consumption of those here on TUG, and the BoD or MVCI has never seen it? Or that he has received a reply.

And if you are interested in the answer to the questions he posed, then why not send the same letter? Or a letter asking for the BoD response to his letter? Everytime I asked to see the proof, I got "he does not have to give you anything, you do not own there".

I would personally require a higher standard in regard to authenicating the statements of others. Particularly on an issue that is so important.

The BoD members are owners also. Why would they seek out BoD office, and then fail to protect the interests of the same group they belong to? In essence taking actions that will hurt them. For they will not be BoD members forever.

I think some fell too easy for this notion that the BoD is only interested in protecting MVCI.

I accept your challange.
I have to scroll back a ways to find Allan's letter.
(if anybody knows the post# to save me time?)
I will forward to the BOD and ask them to respond item by item.
How's that?

 

[SueDonJ]

... (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). ...

Okay, Modo, I did the homework assignment and between it and the news today that David Ortiz' name is on that list of players who tested positive for PED in 2003, now my husband is wandering around muttering under his breath. Here's how it went:

me: You know how there are resorts in Aruba? What would you think if you were an owner there and got this letter from your BOD?

Don: (reads, tosses it back to me) This is why you don't buy at an international resort.

me: <rolling eyes> Yes, and ...?

Don: Are you kidding me? They better not let my info get released to another owner! That's why we have privacy laws - they apply to Americans even if the resort is in Aruba. I think?

me: (trying not to ask leading questions) Okay, but what would you DO? What do you think about the whole thing?

Don: I'd check the 'no' box and sign it and return it, and then I'd send a copy of this letter and the signed thing to the CEO with a letter saying that they better be on top of whatever this is about, using the best attorneys that they can afford to prevent my info from being released.

me: Buuuut .... (still trying) .... any other concerns?

Don: Yeah. I'd also tell them that it better not cost me anything for them to defend against whoever this owner is that has a problem with them.

me: (giving up on trying to not ask leading questions) But, don't you wonder what's behind this? Don't you want to know if something is happening at your resort?

Don: Yep, and that's why I'd go right to the CEO for the answers.

So there you go. But I was surprised by that answer so a little while later I told him that this was the resort that was hit with a huge increase in m/f and a special assessment, and an owner believes that he has information that the entire ownership might be interested in and he's trying to get the list from Marriott so that he can send it out.

His response: Let him fight his own battles. I like what Marriott does and I like Aruba. :hysterical:

And of course I had to laugh with him, because we've never been there.

But like I said, now he's mumbling under his breath about the media and steroids and privacy laws and maybe going to Aruba someday.

 

[modoaruba]

Okay, Modo, I did the homework assignment and between it and the news today that David Ortiz' name is on that list of players who tested positive for PED in 2003, now my husband is wandering around muttering under his breath. Here's how it went:

me: You know how there are resorts in Aruba? What would you think if you were an owner there and got this letter from your BOD?

Don: (reads, tosses it back to me) This is why you don't buy at an international resort.

me: <rolling eyes> Yes, and ...?

Don: Are you kidding me? They better not let my info get released to another owner! That's why we have privacy laws - they apply to Americans even if the resort is in Aruba. I think?

me: (trying not to ask leading questions) Okay, but what would you DO? What do you think about the whole thing?

Don: I'd check the 'no' box and sign it and return it, and then I'd send a copy of this letter and the signed thing to the CEO with a letter saying that they better be on top of whatever this is about, using the best attorneys that they can afford to prevent my info from being released.

me: Buuuut .... (still trying) .... any other concerns?

Don: Yeah. I'd also tell them that it better not cost me anything for them to defend against whoever this owner is that has a problem with them.

me: (giving up on trying to not ask leading questions) But, don't you wonder what's behind this? Don't you want to know if something is happening at your resort?

Don: Yep, and that's why I'd go right to the CEO for the answers.

So there you go. But I was surprised by that answer so a little while later I told him that this was the resort that was hit with a huge increase in m/f and a special assessment, and an owner believes that he has information that the entire ownership might be interested in and he's trying to get the list from Marriott so that he can send it out.

His response: Let him fight his own battles. I like what Marriott does and I like Aruba. :hysterical:

And of course I had to laugh with him, because we've never been there.

But like I said, now he's mumbling under his breath about the media and steroids and privacy laws and maybe going to Aruba someday.

You proved the point that the letter's design could only illicit such a response.
How clever.

 

[SueDonJ]

You proved the point that the letter's design could only illicit such a response.
How clever.

Did I? Or did my husband prove the point that owners can have enough faith in Marriott, because of their own dealings with them, to believe that a single owner's concerns/problems with a resort should be dealt with by that single owner? That's his thought, anyway, even after I told him that Mark/Allan believe that they have important information.

 

[modoaruba]

Did I? Or did my husband prove the point that owners can have enough faith in Marriott, because of their own dealings with them, to believe that a single owner's concerns/problems with a resort should be dealt with by that single owner? That's his thought, anyway, even after I told him that Mark/Allan believe that they have important information.

The letter does not give enough unbiased direction to come to your conclusion.
I am sure if the group would send their own letter out, it would be skewed in their own direction.
If I did not know about this group I would probably,no,definitly, have the same response as Don.

 

[ecwinch]

I accept your challange.
I have to scroll back a ways to find Allan's letter.
(if anybody knows the post# to save me time?)
I will forward to the BOD and ask them to respond item by item.
How's that?

I think that is a great step to dispel some of the speculation.

I also, know that Mark's actions are going to impede their ability to provide answers on all the points.

But I think it is a good evalution of the question at hand. Nothing like facts to dispel idle speculation.

 

[SueDonJ]

You proved the point that the letter's design could only illicit such a response.
How clever.

The letter does not give enough unbiased direction to come to your conclusion.
I am sure if the group would send their own letter out, it would be skewed in their own direction.
If I did not know about this group I would probably,no,definitly, have the same response as Don.

Honestly, Modo, your "how clever" has thrown me for a loop. After a little bit of time to think, I want to first say I'm sorry if you thought that my post with mine and my husband's conversation was too flippant or light or something "off" and you were offended by it. That wasn't at all my intent but I can see how it could be thought so. It honestly was the way the conversation went.

As for the letter eliciting the expected response based on how it's written, well, I'll disagree with you there for a couple of reasons. One reason is that we're, all of us, inundated these days with reminders and notices from practically every company with which we do business about the actions they are taking to prevent identity theft. They have to do that, it's a requirement of all that legislation. But because we're bombarded with it, it's only natural that privacy and identity theft protections are at the forefront of our minds. Even before Luckybee posted the letter for us here, I guessed that identity theft protection was the reason behind the letter's warnings. The second reason, for us personally, is that I expected Don's first reaction to be "no they won't release my information!" because we've been victims of theft in the past, just as you have.

As for the other conclusion, some folks really do have faith in Marriott/MVCI as a good company because of their personal dealings with the company. It is true for Don and I'll bet for a majority of their resort owners. Consider that this thread has had more than forty times more views than posts - 80,159 v 1,835. Some of those views-only are no doubt made by those of us who are active participants. But don't you wonder how many MAOC owners have stopped by here and wandered away uninterested, or how many are following closely without posting or joining the cause? Some of them, I'd guess, have more faith in Marriott/MVCI than Allan or Mark.

 

[ecwinch]

The letter does not give enough unbiased direction to come to your conclusion.
I am sure if the group would send their own letter out, it would be skewed in their own direction.
If I did not know about this group I would probably,no,definitly, have the same response as Don.

Modo, I really respect that you are seemingly one of the few "crusaders" that seems be able to at least see the other side of the argument. I like the fact that you do not just make drive by posts and are willing to have a reasonable discussion of facts.

That not every third post is, "well I am tired of talking about it". That you stay engaged.

But I have to call foul here. You asked us to perform a test. Sue did and reported the results in great detail. A report from some crusaders doing the same would probably have been "my wife thinks MVCI has ruined their reputation by sending out this letter. What do they have to hide?", omitting the fact that they only showed it to their dog.

I appreciate that you do not like the outcome. I want to make sure I give the test a fair shake when I perform it. What did Sue do or fail to do in her test?

I am scratching my head on this one.

 

[ecwinch]

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.

Why would a company that is only concerned about the almighty dollar, agree to provide interest free financing to the resort so that the assessment can be spread over two years?

 

[modoaruba]

"how clever" meant that Marriott was clever in their wording to inspire responses like Don's to those who know nothing.
I say this because that's the way I would have taken the letter.
By my observations,I am not implying sides nor right or wrong.
I agree that many owners do back Marriott.
One of my main reasons for buying was Marriott.
The letter as written,given the situation,had no other way to be addressed.
My motive of posting about it is not to take sides but to expose the language or spirit of it as I would think a newbie would interpret it.
I have shown the letter to several associates and have gotten similar responses. That's why I posted the challenge.
Just an observation.
To say that I am committed to the cause is not totally true.
Committ is a strong word.
I for one am trying to illicit a response from Marriott,the BOD,or whomever,to share their points of view so that I can make an intelligent decision.
My posts are basically made to look at both sides without bias.
Anyone's interpretations of my posts have not always been right on.
I do not discount the groups intentions because I feel that they have some justifications as does Marriott and those that support them.
As you can see from previous posts that I enjoy tremendously going to the AOC and always am looking forward to my return(8 weeks and counting).

Whatever the outcome,I want it to be fair and without bias.
The best response to me so far was:
Do you want to be right or happy!

 

[m61376]

His response: Let him fight his own battles. I like what Marriott does and I like Aruba. :hysterical:

And of course I had to laugh with him, because we've never been there.

But like I said, now he's mumbling under his breath about the media and steroids and privacy laws and maybe going to Aruba someday.

As the saying goes: try it, you may like it :whoopie: :whoopie:
But, given our history of seeing things differently, you'd probably prefer the Ocean Club . Seriously, both resorts are great and you should at some point trade in and see what all the special assessments on this thread have at least paid for.

 

[Chemee]

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?

Here's a link to a USA Today article on this -

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-12-28-marriott-missingdata_x.htm?csp=34

Also, speaking of Marriott maintaining privacy, when we were at the sales presentation when we bought our MAO week, I specifically remember being handed a binder that listed the names & addresses of the MAO owners. It was a sales tactic "look at all the owners in your area". I remember looking up towns in the 4 states we had lived in. They even left us alone with the binder. I could have torn out as many pages as I had wanted to & taken them with me.

 

[modoaruba]

Modo, I really respect that you are seemingly one of the few "crusaders" that seems be able to at least see the other side of the argument. I like the fact that you do not just make drive by posts and are willing to have a reasonable discussion of facts.

That not every third post is, "well I am tired of talking about it". That you stay engaged.

But I have to call foul here. You asked us to perform a test. Sue did and reported the results in great detail. A report from some crusaders doing the same would probably have been "my wife thinks MVCI has ruined their reputation by sending out this letter. What do they have to hide?", omitting the fact that they only showed it to their dog.

I appreciate that you do not like the outcome. I want to make sure I give the test a fair shake when I perform it. What did Sue do or fail to do in her test?

I am scratching my head on this one.

She did not fail at all.The response was what I thought it would be.
I'm scratching my head at those who don't get it.

 

[lovearuba]

what Marriott wants you to know

She did not fail at all.The response was what I thought it would be.
I'm scratching my head at those who don't get it.

Marriott intentionally wrote that letter to mislead folks into believing their information would be misused. There is no other intention and of course anyone who is not involved in the discussion who does not know why it was requested would act like Sue's better half.

 

[Luckybee]

Modo, I really respect that you are seemingly one of the few "crusaders" that seems be able to at least see the other side of the argument. I like the fact that you do not just make drive by posts and are willing to have a reasonable discussion of facts.

That not every third post is, "well I am tired of talking about it". That you stay engaged.

But I have to call foul here. You asked us to perform a test. Sue did and reported the results in great detail. A report from some crusaders doing the same would probably have been "my wife thinks MVCI has ruined their reputation by sending out this letter. What do they have to hide?", omitting the fact that they only showed it to their dog.

I appreciate that you do not like the outcome. I want to make sure I give the test a fair shake when I perform it. What did Sue do or fail to do in her test?

I am scratching my head on this one.

But thats the part I just dont get. I am tired of talking about it. Esp when we're talking about the same things over and over and over and over. Nothing gets solved in so doing. I posted the letter because it was in fact something new. But going over the same things about Allan Cohen, and whether the BOD is right or wrong etc. imho serves no purpose. Im not going to address those simply for your or anyone else's amusement. You know the old adage of opinions are like -------- everyone has one. Well here same thing. I said before I would rather wait and see the end result then I guess we'll all know who was right and who was wrong.

With regard to the letter. I certainly didnt say Marriott ruined their reputation by sending out the letter . What I did say is that the letter did not under any circumstances make clear the situation. As I said to those not in the know it seemed that Marriott and/or the BOD(really one in the same was attempting to prevent a mischief that they were aware of ie that is why the info was being requested not because Allan had requested it through the lawyer. To me and the large number of people(sorry I dont have a dog) that I did show it to that is clearly misleading. Sue's husband made just that point. He had no idea what it was about till he was told. Then he said to let the guy fight his own battles. His choice once he knew what it was that he was agreeing to or not. Thats all I was saying. There should have been enough info in there for people to make that choice. I thought that was sort of obvious on a plain read. Guess im more amazed that there were those who thought otherwise...lol.

Oh and I hope you are including me in the crusader group given that the definitions of crusader include :A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse, and :a disputant who advocates reform, I do think the label is appropriate

 

[lovearuba]

A bit surprised

If you have not personally experienced this, or do not have firm evidence that supports the accounts of the other posters, how do you know it to be true?

And not embellished to solicit your support?

Do you know that Allan sent the letter to MVCI and the AOC?

Is it possible that he wrote if for the consumption of those here on TUG, and the BoD or MVCI has never seen it? Or that he has received a reply.

And if you are interested in the answer to the questions he posed, then why not send the same letter? Or a letter asking for the BoD response to his letter? Everytime I asked to see the proof, I got "he does not have to give you anything, you do not own there".

I would personally require a higher standard in regard to authenicating the statements of others. Particularly on an issue that is so important.

The BoD members are owners also. Why would they seek out BoD office, and then fail to protect the interests of the same group they belong to? In essence taking actions that will hurt them. For they will not be BoD members forever.

I think some fell too easy for this notion that the BoD is only interested in protecting MVCI.

I'm surprised at you, I think you know that Allan is a reputable person and I think you cast doubt because you have lots of time on your hand and just like the back and forth. If you don't have anything to say, then you challenge everyone elses integrity. Allan has offered to speak to anyone who wishes to contact him, you've shied away from it because you don't want to hear both sides.

 

[ecwinch]

But thats the part I just dont get. I am tired of talking about it. Esp when we're talking about the same things over and over and over and over. Nothing gets solved in so doing. I posted the letter because it was in fact something new. But going over the same things about Allan Cohen, and whether the BOD is right or wrong etc. imho serves no purpose. Im not going to address those simply for your or anyone else's amusement. You know the old adage of opinions are like -------- everyone has one. Well here same thing. I said before I would rather wait and see the end result then I guess we'll all know who was right and who was wrong.

With regard to the letter. I certainly didnt say Marriott ruined their reputation by sending out the letter . What I did say is that the letter did not under any circumstances make clear the situation. As I said to those not in the know it seemed that Marriott and/or the BOD(really one in the same was attempting to prevent a mischief that they were aware of ie that is why the info was being requested not because Allan had requested it through the lawyer. To me and the large number of people(sorry I dont have a dog) that I did show it to that is clearly misleading. Sue's husband made just that point. He had no idea what it was about till he was told. Then he said to let the guy fight his own battles. His choice once he knew what it was that he was agreeing to or not. Thats all I was saying. There should have been enough info in there for people to make that choice. I thought that was sort of obvious on a plain read. Guess im more amazed that there were those who thought otherwise...lol.

Oh and I hope you are including me in the crusader group given that the definitions of crusader include :A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse, and :a disputant who advocates reform, I do think the label is appropriate

I do. And I did not choose the term lightly.

Can we agree that these are the facts surrounding this issue?

FACTS:
1) The letter is in response to Allan's actions
2) The letter specifically referenced Allan's actions
3) The BOD has to consider this and all future requests, to set a policy
4) The BOD is asking the members how they want their personal information to be protected

Why do you suggest that the BoD had an obligation to disclose what Mark wanted the information for?

His purpose has no bearing on the question that was being asked. They are setting a policy on this matter.

Are you suggesting that the BoD send out a letter for each request they receive? I do not think that would be cost effective.

Do you know for a fact that Allan disclosed the purpose for requesting the mailing list?

If he did not, how is the BoD supposed to know his intentions?

Now if you want to put this matter to a rest, then address the questions answered. Otherwise, we just keep going around and around. I ask questions, you make statements avoiding the questions - rinse and repeat.

 

[ecwinch]

I'm surprised at you, I think you know that Allan is a reputable person and I think you cast doubt because you have lots of time on your hand and just like the back and forth. If you don't have anything to say, then you challenge everyone elses integrity. Allan has offered to speak to anyone who wishes to contact him, you've shied away from it because you don't want to hear both sides.

I am not interested in hearing Allan's opinions on the matter. If Allan or anyone else has verifiable proof, I am very interested in that information.

I respect your right to your opinion. Respect my right to have my own.

Even a reputable person can make bad decisions. As I have repeated time and time again, I think Allan is misguided, not disreputable.

Nor do I ask these questions because I am bored. I am interested in the topic.

But I think the essence of your suggestion has some merit. I will e-mail him and ask for whatever factual evidence he can supply to support his position.

 

[ecwinch]

Marriott intentionally wrote that letter to mislead folks into believing their information would be misused. There is no other intention and of course anyone who is not involved in the discussion who does not know why it was requested would act like Sue's better half.

To do otherwise would have been them offering their opinion on Allan's motives for requesting the list.

Then they would have been open to legal action for libel if you did not agree with their characterization of why the request is being made.

 

[ecwinch]

She did not fail at all.The response was what I thought it would be.
I'm scratching my head at those who don't get it.

As I am about those that think it is proof of the intent to deceive.