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

[Luckybee]

Yes I do believe the letter was deliberately crafted.You said yourself that you would expect the BOD to not include info to make it easier for the reader.
You just compromised your own thoughts.
If the list gets out(those of you who suffer from paranoia),the most harm it can do is get you more junk mail(which I sincerely doubt).
You are hiding behind the legality of privacy for support of an organization that by far failed to protect our privacy with very damaging private info along with the usage of said info in sending us directly or indirectly excessive amounts of junk.
Cut me a break.
Again, what IS your motive here?
Either you like confrontations due to your nature or you are the Trojan horse as I stated before working with Marriott.

Amen...But sadly now, you're going to be accused of being paranoid, or the detractors are going to start making sarcastic jokes about your thought process which is exactly what has been done each and every time that they get called on this stuff !

 

[SueDonJ]

Yep LoveAruba is certainly correct. Repeatedly Mark and others involved have been advised(both on the board and off the board) NOT to post various things on this board regarding strategy, evidence, etc. esp if there is the possibility that this may end up in court. I can also think of a myriad of others reasons why some things are better left off the board ! This isnt the first time that speaking to Allan has been suggested, yet strangely, those who seem the most interested in stirring the pot have no interest in doing anything other than stirring the pot ie :contacting him.

Honestly, I really and truly see no need to discuss anything with Allan or Mark off of this board. What is it you expect will happen if I do? What, I'm going to change my tune all of a sudden and think that Marriott/MVCI/the BOD should start circumventing the stipulations in the contracts or the legal requirements that impact all of these issues, that they've followed to this point, simply to placate a minority ownership group at one of their many resorts? Nope, that's not going to happen - they and the owners have legal obligations that cannot be dismissed or ignored. Will I hear something from Mark/Allan which will make me think that Marriott/MVCI should pay 100% of the roof repair costs? I doubt it - no insurance or warranty program provides for 100% relief when there has been ongoing usage of the product. Will I think that owners should have access to the personal address/telephone numbers of BOD members? Nope, I said a long time ago that it makes sense to me in this day and age with privacy laws that a generic email address is sufficient for BOD contact. Will I change my thinking that the historical m/f figures have been too low to support your resort and a substantial hike would eventually be necessary to correct that insufficiency? Nope - anybody could review the history of all of the resorts in the MVCI portfolio and come to that conclusion.

Honestly, I think that the only thing on which I and Mark/Allan/all of the MAOC owners would agree is that, the timing of your increased m/f and special assessment is about as unfortunate as could be considering the depressed economy. But I've said that here; there's no reason for me to say it directly by way of any other medium. And the point to all this is, if Mark and/or Allan were truly open to any constructive criticism, they'd accept it in any medium.

 

[SueDonJ]

Yes I do believe the letter was deliberately crafted.You said yourself that you would expect the BOD to not include info to make it easier for the reader.
You just compromised your own thoughts.
If the list gets out(those of you who suffer from paranoia),the most harm it can do is get you more junk mail(which I sincerely doubt).
You are hiding behind the legality of privacy for support of an organization that by far failed to protect our privacy with very damaging private info along with the usage of said info in sending us directly or indirectly excessive amounts of junk.
Cut me a break.
Again, what IS your motive here?
Either you like confrontations due to your nature or you are the Trojan horse as I stated before working with Marriott.

I think you might misunderstand. I agree that the letter is deliberately crafted. We just disagree with the reasons for that deliberation and in the crafting.

As for the stuff about motive or Trojan Horse or working with Marriott, well, that's been asked and answered too many times already.

 

[modoaruba]

Amen...But sadly now, you're going to be accused of being paranoid, or the detractors are going to start making sarcastic jokes about your thought process which is exactly what has been done each and every time that they get called on this stuff !

No problem. I'm a big boy now and am pretty much secure with myself.

 

[ecwinch]

Sue, we know you like to post and you opened this thread back up. It was not really showing on the first page until you resurfaced it by creating numerous other posts. I gave you and Eric the option to speak with Allan and you continue to not what to do that, I guess you dont want to really hear a balanced view or make any constructive criticism. If you did you would take him up on his offer.

Given the sarcastic tone of your last post regarding Allan, I decided that contacting him was pointless. If you think that he is sincerely interested in other opinions please ask him to contact me. Mark has my e-mail address.

 

[ecwinch]

I read this thread every day. Mark helped me know the facts - the simple facts - fees up to 1700 and big SA. I sold. Thanks, Mark.

All the other stuff? It surprises me that it's caused such an angry stir. I guess I'm just a simple person (though most who know me would disagree) - to me the fact that Marriott raised the fees from about 11 to about 17 in one year plus added the SA for 2 years was a terrible thing to do in this economy.

I don't know about Allen and roof and other things - I don't know.

More simple stuff - I love Marriott's quality over other timeshares. I'll rent Aruba every 4 years or so for sure. Bet I get a summer month for about 2K but I don't have to worry about fees going up more.

Ellen,

How will you look back on that decision, if in two years the economy is back up, rental prices start to increase drastically, and you no longer can reserve that week that you enjoyed for so many years?

I am not questioning your decision per se, just illustrating the "collateral damage" of Mark's biased attacks on Marriott.

I write this in the hope, that the economy does improve, but MVCI rental prices stay in a range you are comfortable with. I wish no ill will on anyone that has contributed to this thread.

Thanks

 

[modoaruba]

I think you might misunderstand. I agree that the letter is deliberately crafted. We just disagree with the reasons for that deliberation and in the crafting.

As for the stuff about motive or Trojan Horse or working with Marriott, well, that's been asked and answered too many times already.

The only thing you have to back yourself up might be the bylaws(rule of law).
Is it not the right of owners who might see that there have been injustices committed to legally challenge those issues and bylaws that seem to protect those who have committed the injustices?
Granted,sometimes rules and laws must change but must be followed until such a time they are deemed "unconstitutional".
The statements I make are not to take sides but to allow an openness for the possibility that the group might be correct.
Since you refuse to listen to "facts" gathered by the group, especially since given an invite,don't condemn.
I have listened to those "facts" and they are very concerning.
I have listened to your side and sorts and all I hear is bylaw rhetoric.
Just as you say show me the facts,you have no facts of your own to negate the group's concerns since you do not wish to hear them.
So what's the problem?
They can't post them here for legalities they say,so pick up a phone or go to private messages.
You'll sound a whole lot more informed if you do so.Then we can get into the real nitty gritty.

 

[ecwinch]

You are hiding behind the legality of privacy for support of an organization that by far failed to protect our privacy with very damaging private info along with the usage of said info in sending us directly or indirectly excessive amounts of junk.

In light of your comments to Sue, I want make on my personal stance on the members list issue very clear.

I think that resort developers/managers/HOA's that block a members legal right to the members list are wrong. I can only think that this is something that the ARDA has been promoting as an issue, because all the developers seem to be using the same defense. The issue is currently in Sacramento County court, and the owner won the case. It was appealed and will likely be appealed until exhausted. I believe the court will deny those appeals at some point, or it goes to the Supreme Court.

I do support a members right to opt out of the members list. I think that is an appropriate safeguard for those who wish to have their privacy protected.

My defense was strictly of the letter, and the opinion of some that it represented an attempt to deceive/mislead owners. If I made comments to the contrary, it was only in the context of repeating the defenses that they appear to be using.

 

[ecwinch]

Yep LoveAruba is certainly correct. Repeatedly Mark and others involved have been advised(both on the board and off the board) NOT to post various things on this board regarding strategy, evidence, etc. esp if there is the possibility that this may end up in court. I can also think of a myriad of others reasons why some things are better left off the board ! This isnt the first time that speaking to Allan has been suggested, yet strangely, those who seem the most interested in stirring the pot have no interest in doing anything other than stirring the pot ie :contacting him.

This logic is as well formed as your stated intention to not post here. That relationship is like a moth to a flame.

There is no "surprise attack" in a courtroom. The court process is specifically designed to restrict your ability to do that. You have to disclose witness lists, evidence, etc. I think you watch too much TV if you have a different opinion.

Allan does not post here, because he does not want to have to defend his opinion (IMO). He would rather insulate himself in the opinions of his supporters, and use his proxy (Mark) for such activity.

His only legal concern would be one of defamation and libel.

 

[SueDonJ]

The only thing you have to back yourself up might be the bylaws(rule of law).
Is it not the right of owners who might see that there have been injustices committed to legally challenge those issues and bylaws that seem to protect those who have committed the injustices?
Granted,sometimes rules and laws must change but must be followed until such a time they are deemed "unconstitutional".
The statements I make are not to take sides but to allow an openness for the possibility that the group might be correct.
Since you refuse to listen to "facts" gathered by the group, especially since given an invite,don't condemn.

It's true that I haven't found much in the way of the actions or thoughts (as related here) of those who spearheaded this effort, that would lead me to side with them in this effort. But I haven't condemned anything that hasn't been related here. If legitimate grievances against Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD were to be related here by Mark or Allan (and to date none have been, imo,) then I would be open to the possibilities that this "concerned owners" group is more correct and/or Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD is more incorrect than I've believed up to this point. It's convenient for you, I think, to translate my non-support of what has been related here to non-support of anything about which I have no knowledge.

I have listened to those "facts" and they are very concerning.
I have listened to your side and sorts and all I hear is bylaw rhetoric.
Just as you say show me the facts,you have no facts of your own to negate the group's concerns since you do not wish to hear them.
So what's the problem?
They can't post them here for legalities they say,so pick up a phone or go to private messages.
You'll sound a whole lot more informed if you do so.Then we can get into the real nitty gritty.

As I said, I see no reason to take this discussion off of this board, especially in light of the facts that I believe both Mark and Allan communicate with styles deliberately intended to rile the masses and that they have been about as unreceptive to non-owner input here as it is possible to be. But if any MAOC owner, including them and you and anyone else who chooses, thinks that it will make a difference to discuss this in any other medium, well, it's easy enough to do. Just click on the screenname over there and select, "Send a private message to ..." Several folks - owners and non-owners alike - have already done so throughout this thread.

But again, I don't believe that it's productive to engage that way, and I honestly don't believe that doing so will change my opinions. As has been said by many folks here, if Mark and/or Allan had a smoking gun then this could have all been taken care of quite a few months and quite a few thousand posts ago by producing the evidence to force Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD to comply with whatever contract terms they've breached.

Because that's what it all comes down to for me, Modo. Either your ownership rights as stipulated in your contracts have been infringed upon, resulting in a breach of contract that would put Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD at legal risk, or your rights haven't been infringed. Nothing else matters insofar as "making them pay" for the MAOC owners feeling like their ownership is no longer worth the price.

 

[modoaruba]

It's true that I haven't found much in the way of the actions or thoughts (as related here) of those who spearheaded this effort, that would lead me to side with them in this effort. But I haven't condemned anything that hasn't been related here. If legitimate grievances against Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD were to be related here by Mark or Allan (and to date none have been, imo,) then I would be open to the possibilities that this "concerned owners" group is more correct and/or Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD is more incorrect than I've believed up to this point. It's convenient for you, I think, to translate my non-support of what has been related here to non-support of anything about which I have no knowledge.



As I said, I see no reason to take this discussion off of this board, especially in light of the facts that I believe both Mark and Allan communicate with styles deliberately intended to rile the masses and that they have been about as unreceptive to non-owner input here as it is possible to be. But if any MAOC owner, including them and you and anyone else who chooses, thinks that it will make a difference to discuss this in any other medium, well, it's easy enough to do. Just click on the screenname over there and select, "Send a private message to ..." Several folks - owners and non-owners alike - have already done so throughout this thread.

But again, I don't believe that it's productive to engage that way, and I honestly don't believe that doing so will change my opinions. As has been said by many folks here, if Mark and/or Allan had a smoking gun then this could have all been taken care of quite a few months and quite a few thousand posts ago by producing the evidence to force Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD to comply with whatever contract terms they've breached.

Because that's what it all comes down to for me, Modo. Either your ownership rights as stipulated in your contracts have been infringed upon, resulting in a breach of contract that would put Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD at legal risk, or your rights haven't been infringed. Nothing else matters insofar as "making them pay" for the MAOC owners feeling like their ownership is no longer worth the price.

There you go again with rhetoric.
Understand one thing;this whole thing is not about convincing YOU.
In my opinion there is sufficient data this group has to move forward with their attempt.
Since Allan was past pres. of the BOD,I'm sure he knows the laws better than anyone and is abiding by them.
The system is being tested and there is nothing wrong with that.
In the end it's not YOU that will make the final decision.

 

[Luckybee]

This logic is as well formed as your stated intention to not post here. That relationship is like a moth to a flame.

There is no "surprise attack" in a courtroom. The court process is specifically designed to restrict your ability to do that. You have to disclose witness lists, evidence, etc. I think you watch too much TV if you have a different opinion.

Allan does not post here, because he does not want to have to defend his opinion (IMO). He would rather insulate himself in the opinions of his supporters, and use his proxy (Mark) for such activity.

His only legal concern would be one of defamation and libel.

I am not about to get into a debate with you about whether it is sound advice to post on a BB info that might well be the subject of litigation. If you think that any lawyer in their right mind would tell Mark, Allan or anyone else to do so, then I truly am wasting my breath and my time. Suffice to say I'd bet I know a tad more about the law than you do...lol.

 

[Luckybee]

There you go again with rhetoric.
Understand one thing;this whole thing is not about convincing YOU.
In my opinion there is sufficient data this group has to move forward with their attempt.
Since Allan was past pres. of the BOD,I'm sure he knows the laws better than anyone and is abiding by them.
The system is being tested and there is nothing wrong with that.
In the end it's not YOU that will make the final decision.

Again you are dead right. It isnt at all about convincing Sue or any other non owner. What is interesting, is the number of owners who are aware of the situation and who are also very very concerned !

 

[lovearuba]

Mark and you

Given the sarcastic tone of your last post regarding Allan, I decided that contacting him was pointless. If you think that he is sincerely interested in other opinions please ask him to contact me. Mark has my e-mail address.

It interesting Eric that you would think I have a sarcastic tone because so many people feel that you and the other Eric work for Marriott because of the comments you make. You also have real knack for posting for the sake of posting.

I suggested you talk to Allan for a balanced view. You dont want to and thats fine you can continue to support the intent of keeping this post active. The more people that are owners of the Ocean club that see this, the more owners that will sign up for the cause. We continue to grow but do hope you recognize our right to post regardless of whether you agree. I just want to remind you that you are not the moderator and we do not answer to you. My words are genuine, I really care about this cause and I really believe that we will help change things.

 

[Zac495]

Ellen,

How will you look back on that decision, if in two years the economy is back up, rental prices start to increase drastically, and you no longer can reserve that week that you enjoyed for so many years?

I am not questioning your decision per se, just illustrating the "collateral damage" of Mark's biased attacks on Marriott.

I write this in the hope, that the economy does improve, but MVCI rental prices stay in a range you are comfortable with. I wish no ill will on anyone that has contributed to this thread.

Thanks

Eric,
I hope that things are better for others. The world isn't about me. If suddenly those who didn't sell luck out and can rent their units for 3500 and still have 1700 fees- good for them! I hope the stock market goes back up, too - that I did not sell.

For me, Eric, not going to Aruba every year, it makes no sense to keep such an expensive (fee) timeshare regardless of the rental increase possibility. If Aruba was where I went every year, I wouldn't have sold regardless of the fees and everything else going on. I bought it resale - used it for years - and sold it for a minor loss - so I am relieved.

No matter what happens I will always be glad I got rid of Aruba. It's the wrong ownership for ME right now based on FACTS which are high fees and two SA's. Roof/Allen/etc - I refuse to get into it. I think Mark has owners' best interests at heart. Is he right? Is this being handled correctly? Who knows? I do care - even though I am no longer an owner.

I will continue to watch this thread because I care about the owners. I just think all of us who love timesharing and the Marriott brand should be more supportive of each other - that's all. It just doesn't feel like a supportive thread. I do not say that you or anyone else is wishing ill will - it just doesn't seem supportive.

Do I make sense?

 

[ecwinch]

Eric,
I hope that things are better for others. The world isn't about me. If suddenly those who didn't sell luck out and can rent their units for 3500 and still have 1700 fees- good for them! I hope the stock market goes back up, too - that I did not sell.

For me, Eric, not going to Aruba every year, it makes no sense to keep such an expensive (fee) timeshare regardless of the rental increase possibility. If Aruba was where I went every year, I wouldn't have sold regardless of the fees and everything else going on. I bought it resale - used it for years - and sold it for a minor loss - so I am relieved.

No matter what happens I will always be glad I got rid of Aruba. It's the wrong ownership for ME right now based on FACTS which are high fees and two SA's. Roof/Allen/etc - I refuse to get into it. I think Mark has owners' best interests at heart. Is he right? Is this being handled correctly? Who knows? I do care - even though I am no longer an owner.

I will continue to watch this thread because I care about the owners. I just think all of us who love timesharing and the Marriott brand should be more supportive of each other - that's all. It just doesn't feel like a supportive thread. I do not say that you or anyone else is wishing ill will - it just doesn't seem supportive.

Do I make sense?

Ellen, you do make sense. My reply was based on the limited information you provided on your conversation with Mark. Given your explanation, I understand your POV better.

On your last point, we might disagree. Though they do not feel it, I think we are trying to be supportive of the other owners. It is like when you see someone about to make a major mistake - and you try to encourage them to evaluate the alternatives and potential adverse consequences of their actions. And if it was one person, at some point you go - well it's their life. But here we have a group focused on encourage others to make a similar mistake. So it is natural that it be confrontational.

As I said many times before. If this forum was not used as a pulpit for expressing a biased viewpoint, then I would probably be far less active.

You enjoy your vacations, wherever they might be and however you might obtain them.

Thanks

 

[ecwinch]

It interesting Eric that you would think I have a sarcastic tone because so many people feel that you and the other Eric work for Marriott because of the comments you make. You also have real knack for posting for the sake of posting.

I suggested you talk to Allan for a balanced view. You dont want to and thats fine you can continue to support the intent of keeping this post active. The more people that are owners of the Ocean club that see this, the more owners that will sign up for the cause. We continue to grow but do hope you recognize our right to post regardless of whether you agree. I just want to remind you that you are not the moderator and we do not answer to you. My words are genuine, I really care about this cause and I really believe that we will help change things.

Love,

You seem to be bashing me in the first part, but I will ignore it. I readily admit I can be VERY sarcastic when I want to be. If that was your point, then I agree. On posting for the sake of posting, I will confess that I did that on occasion, but not to the extent you are inferring.

I probably mischaracterized your tone. I took it more as self-defeating. I will heed your suggestion.

Thanks

 

[ecwinch]

I am not about to get into a debate with you about whether it is sound advice to post on a BB info that might well be the subject of litigation. If you think that any lawyer in their right mind would tell Mark, Allan or anyone else to do so, then I truly am wasting my breath and my time. Suffice to say I'd bet I know a tad more about the law than you do...lol.

It must be nice to revel in that air of self-superiority. Particularly when you know so much about the person of whom you are speaking. And I want to keep this civil, so I only offer the hope that you were not the one providing advice on the special election. If so tad might have been the right term to use. And keep in mind that this issue pertains to a particular area of the law. How can you be so sure that you have researched and studied this area to the extent I have? Do you have expertise in corporate law or corporate governance? I am not saying that I am or do, just pointing out the potential fallacy of your statement.

And as a knowledge person about the law, I think you understand how the legal system is constructed to mitigate the element of strategic surprise in legal proceedings. However, your advice is sound in terms of not making statements in a public forum that would be used against you in court. I think my comments were more from the good old days when this had the opportunity to be peacefully resolved.

 

[ecwinch]

There you go again with rhetoric.
Understand one thing;this whole thing is not about convincing YOU.
In my opinion there is sufficient data this group has to move forward with their attempt.
Since Allan was past pres. of the BOD,I'm sure he knows the laws better than anyone and is abiding by them.
The system is being tested and there is nothing wrong with that.
In the end it's not YOU that will make the final decision.

I have a difference of opinion. And I point to the manner in which the special meeting issue was handled as the case in point. I notice no reports that special meeting issue is being legally challenged, when it was widely reported that MVCI was violating the by-laws.

 

[Luckybee]

It must be nice to revel in that air of self-superiority. Particularly when you know so much about the person of whom you are speaking. And I want to keep this civil, so I only offer the hope that you were not the one providing advice on the special election. If so tad might have been the right term to use. And keep in mind that this issue pertains to a particular area of the law. How can you be so sure that you have researched and studied this area to the extent I have? Do you have expertise in corporate law or corporate governance? I am not saying that I am or do, just pointing out the potential fallacy of your statement.

And as a knowledge person about the law, I think you understand how the legal system is constructed to mitigate the element of strategic surprise in legal proceedings. However, your advice is sound in terms of not making statements in a public forum that would be used against you in court. I think my comments were more from the good old days when this had the opportunity to be peacefully resolved.

Well perhaps we are both in the same profession That said when you indicated that there would not be any reason for those involved to hold off posting strategy , info etc. it seemed to me that you couldnt possibly be a lawyer since that would be the first advice one would be giving. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.
And no I am not an Aruban lawyer so I wouldnt be the one giving advice
Suffice to say however that I think even Marriott thinks the lawyer providing the advice must be a good one, or they wouldnt have tried to hire him....lol.

 

[Dean]

The only thing you have to back yourself up might be the bylaws(rule of law).
Is it not the right of owners who might see that there have been injustices committed to legally challenge those issues and bylaws that seem to protect those who have committed the injustices?
Granted,sometimes rules and laws must change but must be followed until such a time they are deemed "unconstitutional".
The statements I make are not to take sides but to allow an openness for the possibility that the group might be correct.
Since you refuse to listen to "facts" gathered by the group, especially since given an invite,don't condemn.

A few points. First, the facts are fairly limited. The amounts of the fees, SA, actual changes of the BOD, the documted specifics of the BOD meeting, the lack of appropriate documentation on the "petition", the reason for the SA, that Marriott offered to pay a portion and the like ARE facts. That this is going to cost the resort, and likely all of the owners, more in the long run is also apparent. The rest is all accusation at this point that may or may not prove to be fact. I don't see where a conversation with anyone on one side or the other will change all of that. What would change that is if documents and documented transcripts were produced. You mentioned the bylaws, several of us asked for them to be more informed and to better respond to specifics of the discussion but they never materialized citing the size of the documents as too much to copy.

You are not an impartial party, this very post makes your bias obvious. That's not to say you need to be neutral but to pose as unbiased is misleading.

What is interesting, is the number of owners who are aware of the situation and who are also very very concerned !

This has no bearing on the discussion. Anyone who saw a major increase in fees AND a SA should be concerned. It does not affect the reasonableness of either side of this issue one iota.

To sum up the back and forth in this thread, there are a group of owners who feel wronged by Marriott (rightly or wrongly so, time will tell) and a group that are unwilling to accept the rhetoric without actual proof which is currently not available to us. Given that there those that are clearly on one side of the equation, there really is little need for those of us looking at both sides to say much in support of the concerned owners group other than to address the factual information and approach of the group. That does not make any of us Marriott apologists, the very suggestion that those that don't agree are Marriott plants is absurd from what I've seen on this thread. It reeks of name calling rather than discussing the issues and facts. I do realize that at the present time that it would be detrimental to any legal actions to post certain information but that is a cross that the group will have to bear, like a fight with one hand tied behind their back and their problem, IMO.

Let me go on record as saying that I don't think the group will ever be able to prove their case but I do realize that doesn't necessarily make them wrong.

 

[Zac495]

Ellen, you do make sense. My reply was based on the limited information you provided on your conversation with Mark. Given your explanation, I understand your POV better.

On your last point, we might disagree. Though they do not feel it, I think we are trying to be supportive of the other owners. It is like when you see someone about to make a major mistake - and you try to encourage them to evaluate the alternatives and potential adverse consequences of their actions. And if it was one person, at some point you go - well it's their life. But here we have a group focused on encourage others to make a similar mistake. So it is natural that it be confrontational.

As I said many times before. If this forum was not used as a pulpit for expressing a biased viewpoint, then I would probably be far less active.

You enjoy your vacations, wherever they might be and however you might obtain them.

Thanks

And you enjoy yours. On that - we ALL agree!

 

[SueDonJ]

There you go again with rhetoric.
Understand one thing;this whole thing is not about convincing YOU.
In my opinion there is sufficient data this group has to move forward with their attempt.
Since Allan was past pres. of the BOD,I'm sure he knows the laws better than anyone and is abiding by them.
The system is being tested and there is nothing wrong with that.
In the end it's not YOU that will make the final decision.

Of course it wouldn't be me making a final decision - whatever gave you the idea that I thought it would be? I was asked why the suggestion to contact Allan directly wasn't taken and that's what I was answering.

But now I have a question. What makes you think that Allan's position as past president of the BOD would automatically mean that he would abide by laws? After all, Mark's first few posts here were very clear about the fact that Allan suggested, while he was still a member of the BOD, that owners may want to consider a lawsuit against Marriott/MVCI/and that BOD. Do you honestly believe that was ethical behavior for a BOD member, or that the obligations of the position wouldn't prohibit that sort of behavior?

 

[Dean]

Do you honestly believe that was ethical behavior for a BOD member, or that the obligations of the position wouldn't prohibit that sort of behavior?

Without getting into ethics, I suspect there is a BOD oath that would prohibit certain actions and that we've gone past that line. Time will tell if that makes a former member of the BOD brave or inappropriate. I purposefully want to withhold that judgement simply because I don't know or have a way of knowing at this point and there's a good chance we may never have the info. Even if this gets settled in favor of the group in question, it's unlikely Marriott will accept fault or that it will be proven in court that the accusations are true. I'd say the MOST they could expect would be a settlement with Marriott paying the entire thing minus legal fees with no acceptance of guilt. I'll go on record as stating this settlement would NOT be enough to settle the issue in my book as I see them innocent until proven guilty.

 

[modoaruba]

Of course it wouldn't be me making a final decision - whatever gave you the idea that I thought it would be? I was asked why the suggestion to contact Allan directly wasn't taken and that's what I was answering.

But now I have a question. What makes you think that Allan's position as past president of the BOD would automatically mean that he would abide by laws? After all, Mark's first few posts here were very clear about the fact that Allan suggested, while he was still a member of the BOD, that owners may want to consider a lawsuit against Marriott/MVCI/and that BOD. Do you honestly believe that was ethical behavior for a BOD member, or that the obligations of the position wouldn't prohibit that sort of behavior?

Speaking of ethics and moralsersonaly I would have a great deal of respect for an elected official who chose to deviate from obligatory duties in favor of standing up to what he/she believed to be in the best interest of those they represent.
I have no problem with that idea.
I do NOT say that this is what happened in THIS case.
I happen to be idealistic at times.That is one of my downfalls.
History abounds us with those kinds of people.
Some even became heros.
So you choose not to listen to the group's concerns as they see it,which is OK.Your'e not obligated to agree with them.Instead you choose to rattle that sacred book(the bylaws) without question.
That any deviation from it's written text is grounds for excommunication is outragious.
Sorry for choice of words.English and writing were never my strong points.