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

[ecwinch]

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.

I think you mean to say as long as he acts to protect the interests of the majority, rather than your statement of "best interest of those they represent."

For otherwise, your position would seem to justify the actions of Saddam Hussein or any other despot that attains power but represents a minority interest.

And that is the problem. Without a clear mandate, how did he know that he was representing the interests of majority. Regardless, when you apply your logic to the positions of power, it can used to justify any action. It only requires that he "believe" his actions are just. I can provide numerous examples where someone did harm by abandoning his obligatory duties in pursuit of his misguided belief.

 

[modoaruba]

I think you mean to say as long as he acts to protect the interests of the majority, rather than your statement of "best interest of those they represent."

For otherwise, your position would seem to justify the actions of Saddam Hussein or any other despot that attains power but represents a minority interest.

And that is the problem. Without a clear mandate, how did he know that he was representing the interests of majority. Regardless, when you apply your logic to the positions of power, it can used to justify any action. It only requires that he "believe" his actions are just. I can provide numerous examples where someone did harm by abandoning his obligatory duties in pursuit of his misguided belief.

As stated before,the majority are ignorant nor don't care enough.
That's why the letter was written as it was in order to prevent a possibility of a majority to take action.
I said possibility.Therefore it was taken out of the equation.
Comparing this situation to Hussein is a bit much don't you think?
Hussein became a dictator and lived the high life at the expense of his constituants.Allan's motive is for the benefit of his former constituants now co-owners.
If the group turns out to be right,you put the label of dictatorship on the wrong party.
I understand that rules are to be followed but there are serious concerns here.
Take the time and find out what they are.You MIGHT understand where it' coming from.You don't have to agree.
I am open to discussion of both sides but Marriott and the BOD have NOT added there point of view regarding these issues line by line.
If any body brings up the subject that they cannot due to possible litigation in the works,then apply the same train of thought to the group's.Fair is fair.

 

[SueDonJ]

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.

But Modo, doesn't this completely discount that I HAVE listened to this group's concerns as they see them, as they've related them here, and those are the concerns that I've criticized?

I like your choice of words - the bylaws as sacred, deviation as sacrilege, excommunication for nonconformance? The words are a little extreme, sure, but your thoughts make sense to me. And maybe you're correct - I'm more inclined than not to believe that Marriott/MVCI/the BOD will demand that every single legal "t" will need to be crossed and every single legal "i" will need to be dotted if your group's efforts are to be successful. But isn't that what you folks are demanding of them, [edit] that they honor every protection afforded to owners as stipulated in the ownership documents?

You asked in an earlier post something along the lines of, "don't owners have a right to challenge the bylaws and/or try to change them?" Of course they do - in fact, that right is written into the bylaws. But there is a correct way to do so.

 

[Zac495]

97 more posts to 2000!

 

[marksue]

Email sent to those who did not send back the scare tactic mail

Sounds to me not many people are responding and MVCI is getting concerned. It is funny they want the owners to make an informed decision, yet they don't want to give them the entire stroy to make that informed decision. So once again lack of transparency and truth from MVCI.

Time for Sue and Eric to attack this email


August 4, 2009

Dear Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club Owner:

By now you should have received the July 16, 2009 letter giving you the opportunity (by means of checking a box and signing the declaration) to indicate whether or not you authorize having your personal contact information (home mailing address and personal email address) released to individual Aruba Ocean Club owners who may request such information. We believe that it is very important to give owners the opportunity to make an informed decision regarding this issue, and we therefore encourage you to complete and return the signed declaration as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Coöperative Vereniging Marriott Vacation Club International of Aruba Association

 

[marksue]

Zac 95 more to go

 

[SueDonJ]

Sounds to me not many people are responding and MVCI is getting concerned. It is funny they want the owners to make an informed decision, yet they don't want to give them the entire stroy to make that informed decision. So once again lack of transparency and truth from MVCI.

Time for Sue and Eric to attack this email


August 4, 2009

Dear Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club Owner:

By now you should have received the July 16, 2009 letter giving you the opportunity (by means of checking a box and signing the declaration) to indicate whether or not you authorize having your personal contact information (home mailing address and personal email address) released to individual Aruba Ocean Club owners who may request such information. We believe that it is very important to give owners the opportunity to make an informed decision regarding this issue, and we therefore encourage you to complete and return the signed declaration as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Coöperative Vereniging Marriott Vacation Club International of Aruba Association

They're following up to get as many responses as possible but they've done so with no obvious or veiled encouragement or bias towards either themselves or your group. It's a good thing that they're encouraging owner participation, isn't it? I think so, and if they haven't received responses from 100% of the owners, then I would think you would welcome this follow-up.

I wonder though, Mark, how/where you see the, "... Sounds to me not many people are responding and MVCI is getting concerned ..." in this letter. Aren't you now applying a slant or bias for which you condemned Marriott/MVCI/the BOD in their first letter?

 

[marksue]

I wonder though, Mark, how/where you see the, "... Sounds to me not many people are responding and MVCI is getting concerned ..." in this letter. Aren't you now applying a slant or bias for which you condemned Marriott/MVCI/the BOD in their first letter?

The only other time they have done this is this past elecetion when they did not have enough votes and saw Allan's name on the proxies. Never for any other BOD election or other mailing has Marriott ever followed it up with more emails asking people to send responses back. The point is they did not give the truth to the letter and continue to not be transparent as to the issue.

 

[Luckybee]

Dont forget the title of the email as well ...."immediate response required"...interesting choice of words...but also funny....I thought it was spam that got through my filter...almost didnt open it...lol

 

[SueDonJ]

The only other time they have done this is this past elecetion when they did not have enough votes and saw Allan's name on the proxies. Never for any other BOD election or other mailing has Marriott ever followed it up with more emails asking people to send responses back. The point is they did not give the truth to the letter and continue to not be transparent as to the issue.

Ah, but they did have enough votes, didn't they?

I really am not getting this, "they're not transparent enough" thing. Especially as you use it here, Mark, because this is YOUR issue, not theirs! Your group is an adversary of theirs who is trying to bolster more support from other owners for your issue against Marriott/MVCI/the BOD. How can you possibly expect that your adversary would help you in any way that they're not required to do so, in any way that might actually harm them? I don't get it.

 

[lovearuba]

yes, you were right

Sounds to me not many people are responding and MVCI is getting concerned. It is funny they want the owners to make an informed decision, yet they don't want to give them the entire stroy to make that informed decision. So once again lack of transparency and truth from MVCI.

Time for Sue and Eric to attack this email


August 4, 2009

Dear Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club Owner:

By now you should have received the July 16, 2009 letter giving you the opportunity (by means of checking a box and signing the declaration) to indicate whether or not you authorize having your personal contact information (home mailing address and personal email address) released to individual Aruba Ocean Club owners who may request such information. We believe that it is very important to give owners the opportunity to make an informed decision regarding this issue, and we therefore encourage you to complete and return the signed declaration as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Coöperative Vereniging Marriott Vacation Club International of Aruba Association

I would not respond it just gives more fuel to the fire.

 

[modoaruba]

Sounds to me not many people are responding and MVCI is getting concerned. It is funny they want the owners to make an informed decision, yet they don't want to give them the entire stroy to make that informed decision. So once again lack of transparency and truth from MVCI.

Time for Sue and Eric to attack this email


August 4, 2009

Dear Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club Owner:

By now you should have received the July 16, 2009 letter giving you the opportunity (by means of checking a box and signing the declaration) to indicate whether or not you authorize having your personal contact information (home mailing address and personal email address) released to individual Aruba Ocean Club owners who may request such information. We believe that it is very important to give owners the opportunity to make an informed decision regarding this issue, and we therefore encourage you to complete and return the signed declaration as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Coöperative Vereniging Marriott Vacation Club International of Aruba Association

Try to tell those people the sky is blue and see what you get.
Who gives a hoot?
All you guys are trying to get across is to have the owners read your concerns,which also happens to be all of the owner's concerns one way or another,get Marriott and the BOD to respond,and make a decision.
This opposition that you face in this blog and the joy they derive is weird to me.
It bothers me that they would try to demean your quest.The holy book is always thrown at you guys.
That's why I brought up motive.
Maybe Freud would have analyzed it as anal?

 

[ecwinch]

As stated before,the majority are ignorant nor don't care enough.
That's why the letter was written as it was in order to prevent a possibility of a majority to take action.
I said possibility.Therefore it was taken out of the equation.
Comparing this situation to Hussein is a bit much don't you think?
Hussein became a dictator and lived the high life at the expense of his constituants.Allan's motive is for the benefit of his former constituants now co-owners.
If the group turns out to be right,you put the label of dictatorship on the wrong party.
I understand that rules are to be followed but there are serious concerns here.
Take the time and find out what they are.You MIGHT understand where it' coming from.You don't have to agree.
I am open to discussion of both sides but Marriott and the BOD have NOT added there point of view regarding these issues line by line.
If any body brings up the subject that they cannot due to possible litigation in the works,then apply the same train of thought to the group's.Fair is fair.

For clarity, I was not comparing Allan to Saddam. I was trying to understand your statement better by pointing out an example that your statement seemed to support, but I doubt that you personally did.

And yes, the winners write the history books. If Allan wins, then the history will be "the heroic Allan stood up to the evil MVCI". If he loses he will be labeled a "mis-guided fool that caused problems".

In terms of why the BoD does not post here, I can only point to the explanation that Mark offered when we asked why Allan could not early in this process.

 

[ecwinch]

Ah, but they did have enough votes, didn't they?

I really am not getting this, "they're not transparent enough" thing. Especially as you use it here, Mark, because this is YOUR issue, not theirs! Your group is an adversary of theirs who is trying to bolster more support from other owners for your issue against Marriott/MVCI/the BOD. How can you possibly expect that your adversary would help you in any way that they're not required to do so, in any way that might actually harm them? I don't get it.

Even though the letter is asking if the owners want to opt out of the members list policy for now and the future, Mark feels that MVCI should provide a complete account of the crusade.

If he got that, he then would accuse them of mis-representing his position and the history.

For an anarchist, it is the perfect situation. Criticize them when they communicate, criticize them when they do not. Ignore any and factual information that fails to support my biased position. Do not defend my position because of the "pending" legal action. But pop in every so often and stir the pot.

Mark,

BTW - have you provided them with the specific reason you want the member's list, or are you suggesting that they just make one up?

 

[Luckybee]

Even though the letter is asking if the owners want to opt out of the members list policy for now and the future, Mark feels that MVCI should provide a complete account of the crusade.

If he got that, he then would accuse them of mis-representing his position and the history.

For an anarchist, it is the perfect situation. Criticize them when they communicate, criticize them when they do not. Ignore any and factual information that fails to support my biased position. Do not defend my position because of the "pending" legal action. But pop in every so often and stir the pot.

Mark,

BTW - have you provided them with the specific reason you want the member's list, or are you suggesting that they just make one up?

You were right it is like a moth to the flame because your inflammatory posts are truly difficult to ignore. . You have the audacity to say that Mark is stirring the pot when in fact it is just you and Sue who do so. Your sense of reality is truly distorted imho. All Mark or any of the owners have asked for is that the letter simply should not have misrepresented the reason it was being requested which it CLEARLY did. If you havent noticed, and obviously you havent the only ones who seem to be complaining about Marks actions are NON OWNERS! The majority of those who have become aware of the situation who are owners are on board and those numbers are growing daily.

 

[ecwinch]

You were right it is like a moth to the flame because your inflammatory posts are truly difficult to ignore. . You have the audacity to say that Mark is stirring the pot when in fact it is just you and Sue who do so. Your sense of reality is truly distorted imho. All Mark or any of the owners have asked for is that the letter simply should not have misrepresented the reason it was being requested which it CLEARLY did. If you havent noticed, and obviously you havent the only ones who seem to be complaining about Marks actions are NON OWNERS! The majority of those who have become aware of the situation who are owners are on board and those numbers are growing daily.

And help me again with how they misrepresented the reason. I think they were clear on the reason, i.e.

"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."

How much clearer do you want them to be? Better yet, tell me what you think they should have written.

 

[Luckybee]

And help me again with how they misrepresented the reason. I think they were clear on the reason, i.e.

"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."

How much clearer do you want them to be? Better yet, tell what you think they should have written.

Already did that ! Read the entire letter again. Then read both my posts and others. It was the reason that the names were being requested that was misrepresented.....you've already been told how that could have been corrected easily ! But perhaps you were too busy putting the Marriott spin on things to notice.

 

[timeos2]

Don't ever give away valuable access

Already did that ! Read the entire letter again. It was the reason that the names were being requested that was misrepresented.....you've already been told how that could have been corrected easily ! But perhaps you were too busy putting the Marriott spin on things to notice.

This whole line of back and forth over the release of the owners list to a third party (owners or not) makes me VERY happy that the State of Florida - along with many others - specifically PROHIBIT such a release. While we fought a similar battle over resort control some years back we, as the "right" side of the fence of course, felt it was unfair and that we were being denied fair access to tell our side of the tale.

But after the smoke cleared and we carefully followed the rules and the management had to send out our newsletter (at cost) we ended up winning the control battle and appreciate the protection that preventing unfettered access to that list offered all of us as owners - developer or not.

There are plenty of companies, people and groups that would LOVE to have access to the owners list at most resorts. It is an extremely valuable commodity and we learned that protecting it to the greatest extent possible is the best way to go. Doing things by the rules means you CAN reach owners but under a process that does all it can to avoid abuse of that valuable list. I applaud Marriott/Management for protecting the owners and making sure proper procedure is followed before anyone gets direct contact using that private mailing list. Anyone demanding unfettered access for whatever reason (as an example an owner at our resort wanted to send a letter to every owner touting their "collection" service - a potential goldmine for them that would be tough to explain clearly to owners in a short letter. When presented with the up front cost and the need to have it be a legitimate owner contact they backed off) just hasn't thought through the potential for abuse. Spam, junk mail and more are just the tip of the iceberg. There is no way I'd want my information divulged by my resort. There is enough in the public record for anyone that wants to pay to search it out in time or money - don't make it easy for them by handing them the keys to the kingdom of the owners listing.

Marriott isn't doing anything unfair in demanding the proper procedures be used for any type of mailing.

 

[ecwinch]

This whole line of back and forth over the release of the owners list to a third party (owners or not) makes me VERY happy that the State of Florida - along with many others - specifically PROHIBIT such a release. While we fought a similar battle over resort control some years back we, as the "right" side of the fence of course, felt it was unfair and that we were being denied fair access to tell our side of the tale.

But after the smoke cleared and we carefully followed the rules and the management had to send out our newsletter (at cost) we ended up winning the control battle and appreciate the protection that preventing unfettered access to that list offered all of us as owners - developer or not.

There are plenty of companies, people and groups that would LOVE to have access to the owners list at most resorts. It is an extremely valuable commodity and we learned that protecting it to the greatest extent possible is the best way to go. Doing things by the rules means you CAN reach owners but under a process that does all it can to avoid abuse of that valuable list. I applaud Marriott/Management for protecting the owners and making sure proper procedure is followed before anyone gets direct contact using that private mailing list. Anyone demanding unfettered access for whatever reason (as an example an owner at our resort wanted to send a letter to every owner touting their "collection" service - a potential goldmine for them that would be tough to explain clearly to owners in a short letter. When presented with the up front cost and the need to have it be a legitimate owner contact they backed off) just hasn't thought through the potential for abuse. Spam, junk mail and more are just the tip of the iceberg. There is no way I'd want my information divulged by my resort. There is enough in the public record for anyone that wants to pay to search it out in time or money - don't make it easy for them by handing them the keys to the kingdom of the owners listing.

Marriott isn't doing anything unfair in demanding the proper procedures be used for any type of mailing.

Here comes the Bill Marriott paid off Jeb Bush stories.

You non-owner.

 

[ecwinch]

Already did that ! Read the entire letter again. Then read both my posts and others. It was the reason that the names were being requested that was misrepresented.....you've already been told how that could have been corrected easily ! But perhaps you were too busy putting the Marriott spin on things to notice.

Wait, let me put on my Special MarkSue "MVCI is evil" glasses and re-read the letter. Oh yeah, I see what you mean. It is right their in invisible ink.

No, Lucky. As someone with a great knowledge of the law, you should be able to see that they never say MarkSue is asking for the list so he can provide it to a tele-marketer. You are making that his reason, AOC is not.

The letter could be better written, but it does not misrepresent the reason that is prompting AOC to contact the owner. Nor does it even state Mark's reason for making the request. It outlines the potential consequences of MVCI providing the list to Mark. It never states that those potential consequences are the reason for his request.

 

[Luckybee]

This whole line of back and forth over the release of the owners list to a third party (owners or not) makes me VERY happy that the State of Florida - along with many others - specifically PROHIBIT such a release. While we fought a similar battle over resort control some years back we, as the "right" side of the fence of course, felt it was unfair and that we were being denied fair access to tell our side of the tale.

But after the smoke cleared and we carefully followed the rules and the management had to send out our newsletter (at cost) we ended up winning the control battle and appreciate the protection that preventing unfettered access to that list offered all of us as owners - developer or not.

There are plenty of companies, people and groups that would LOVE to have access to the owners list at most resorts. It is an extremely valuable commodity and we learned that protecting it to the greatest extent possible is the best way to go. Doing things by the rules means you CAN reach owners but under a process that does all it can to avoid abuse of that valuable list. I applaud Marriott/Management for protecting the owners and making sure proper procedure is followed before anyone gets direct contact using that private mailing list. Anyone demanding unfettered access for whatever reason (as an example an owner at our resort wanted to send a letter to every owner touting their "collection" service - a potential goldmine for them that would be tough to explain clearly to owners in a short letter. When presented with the up front cost and the need to have it be a legitimate owner contact they backed off) just hasn't thought through the potential for abuse. Spam, junk mail and more are just the tip of the iceberg. There is no way I'd want my information divulged by my resort. There is enough in the public record for anyone that wants to pay to search it out in time or money - don't make it easy for them by handing them the keys to the kingdom of the owners listing.

Marriott isn't doing anything unfair in demanding the proper procedures be used for any type of mailing.

Therein lies the problem. Marriott isnt demanding that any proper procedures be followed, rather they are both refusing to allow a mailing by anyone other than them and also refusing to allow access to the list. In actual fact they are preventing a substantial number of owners from acquiring any info other than Marriotts. There are still a significant number of owners who are not aware at all of the situation at the resort and by that I mean no knowledge at all that there is a group attempting to make changes in the way the BOD operates, and attempting to have bod members replaced. Whether one agrees with the "concerned owners group " or not the owners should have an opportunity to make there position clear to all owners, and not just those who read message boards.

It seems that the only way that the mailing will get done is after court procedures are instituted and dealt with.

 

[Luckybee]

Wait, let me put on my Special MarkSue "MVCI is evil" glasses and re-read the letter. Oh yeah, I see what you mean. It is right their in invisible ink.

No, Lucky. As someone with a great knowledge of the law, you should be able to see that they never say MarkSue is asking for the list so he can provide it to a tele-marketer. You are making that his reason, AOC is not.

The letter could be better written, but it does not misrepresent the reason that is prompting AOC to contact the owner. Nor does it even state Mark's reason for making the request. It outlines the potential consequences of MVCI providing the list to Mark. It never states that those potential consequences are the reason for his request.

Nah it doesnt leave that impression at all....guess I must be mistaken...so are all the other's I asked about it. You see this is why this is so silly and why I do try to avoid this as much as it pains me to do. You wont even agree on the obvious. If Mark of any of the other other owners pointed out that the sky was blue, you would say nope there were clouds in the sky, but if Marriott said the same thing you would indicate "well of course it was blue ".
If you truly believe that the letter was not misleading I am not going to waste any more of my breath debating with you. But since it would be impossible for anyone to truly believe that then I have to accept that you are only here to stir the pot on behalf of Marriott and that is unfortunate.

 

[ecwinch]

Here is how I would have rewritten the letter to clear up any ambiguity. The edit is relatively minor, and in no way changes the reason for the way the request is being made. It just takes some detail that is buried in the last paragraph in moves it up into the beginning part of the letter:


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 .

Given the sensitive nature of your personal information, the Board is providing you with an opportunity to "opt out" from this, and any future requests for your personal information from your fellow owners.

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,

 

[timeos2]

It has to be done correctly

Therein lies the problem. Marriott isnt demanding that any proper procedures be followed, rather they are both refusing to allow a mailing by anyone other than them and also refusing to allow access to the list. In actual fact they are preventing a substantial number of owners from acquiring any info other than Marriotts. There are still a significant number of owners who are not aware at all of the situation at the resort and by that I mean no knowledge at all that there is a group attempting to make changes in the way the BOD operates, and attempting to have bod members replaced. Whether one agrees with the "concerned owners group " or not the owners should have an opportunity to make there position clear to all owners, and not just those who read message boards.

It seems that the only way that the mailing will get done is after court procedures are instituted and dealt with.

If the rules are similar to what we came up against then ONLY the management has the right to send out letters for the Association at large. They do not have to give you the rules they just need to be given a proper request and take it through whatever process the law or docs or both require. The process should be identified in your documents or by timeshare laws/regulations. If not then a simple request should generate the needed information (if that has been done and Marriott failed to follow through with the requirements that would be the first actual misstep I've seen in all this. But I don't see anywhere in these 1000+ messages that a proper request for a mailing was ever made). And they can demand that the people looking for that access pay for it - not on the owners dime. Nothing illegal or underhanded about any of that. Has the proper request been made and if so by who?

 

[Luckybee]

Removed my own post