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

[ecwinch]

Allow me here to wish your mother good luck and speedy recovery.
I went through the same last year with my dad.
There are obviously more important issues out there than this blog.
As a side line,chalk up another post from moi.
Keep the faith.

I am sorry to hear about your mom. I lost mine and actually used some of the money she left me to purchase the timeshare. I told my husband that I wanted to use the money only for things that would bring us happiness. I had tremendous difficulty letting her go so I truly know how precious moms can be and I sincerely hope things work out well for yours. I am also confident that if you have reached out to Allan, he will connect. Hes a wonderful person and will listen as long as the conversation is respectful.

Thanks for the kind words. I find that posting on boards like these just takes my mind off the issue, and that is why I post so frequently. Just trying to offer some insight. Sometimes I think we lose sight of the fact that we may have a difference of opinion, but I think we are all good people at heart.

 

[thadius65]

Wow.... After scanning 79 or so pages, I am sure glad I bought at the Surf Club! Actually, this thread (and an owner on the beach in aruba this year) kept us from considering the Ocean Club.

Good luck! I hope enough is learned that future issues at other sites can be avoided.

Ted

 

[modoaruba]

Wow.... After scanning 79 or so pages, I am sure glad I bought at the Surf Club! Actually, this thread (and an owner on the beach in aruba this year) kept us from considering the Ocean Club.

Good luck! I hope enough is learned that future issues at other sites can be avoided.

Ted

We bought into the AOC in 1998 and have been going there twice a year since. Never had a bad time. The accommodations and staff were always top notch for us.
Issues came up last year which I strongly feel are not unique to the AOC but rather exists at other timeshares. A board member here decided to "whisleblow" a foul thinking it to be in the best interest of the owners.
Basically there is a cry out for transparancy.
Other timeshares have not gotten as much attention possibly because no other board member challenged the status quo as was done here and the owners at the other timeshares are oblivious to what's going on behind the scenes.
Right or wrong, people will read into it as what they feel to be right for them.
The AOC is a place for vacation.It is not, I hope, a major investment.
Weighing out the hierchy of importance of the controversy will be different to everyone which will depend on many factors.
Even though the fees have risen,luckily my finances will not suffer.
We have used the weeks owned to their full benefit and probably ahead of the game or at worse at a break even.
Many owners,as stated before, either don't know of what is going on,don't feel the need to get involved because it's not important enough for them.And there are owners like myself that are concerned but not going to have a coronary over it.
The only reason I would not buy at this point would have nothing to do with the controversies.I like Marriott running the AOC but would like them to be more open and explain themselves to the issues.(Surf Club also Marriott-so the same thing can happen there).But my reason for not buying is today's cost as I analyzed in prior posts,but that implies to any timeshare.
So enjoy your timeshare.It's up to you what you make of it.

By the way The Yankees just won over Boston Life is good

 

[SueDonJ]

... By the way The Yankees just won over Boston Life is good

Man alive, that was painful to watch. Something's definitely not right in that clubhouse, but if this year follows the club history we won't hear about it until probably the 2014 season. Plus, there's practically a revolving sidewalk between Pawtucket and Boston with all the big boys dropping like flies. Ugh, I really hate this point in the season.

But besides all that, today was a beautiful day with low humidity and low 80's temps. Can't ask for more.

 

[Dean]

Basically there is a cry out for transparancy.

No, it's mainly about the money. Transparency would not have been an issue without the fees increases, SA and perception that this was Marriott trying to pass the cost of an issue they knew prior to sales was not acceptable. The last part and how it was handled was the second half of the issue don't you think. And the third component, the honesty and integrity of the BOD, management and Marriott. At least this is my perception of the issues.

 

[modoaruba]

No, it's mainly about the money. Transparency would not have been an issue without the fees increases, SA and perception that this was Marriott trying to pass the cost of an issue they knew prior to sales was not acceptable. The last part and how it was handled was the second half of the issue don't you think. And the third component, the honesty and integrity of the BOD, management and Marriott. At least this is my perception of the issues.

I was just trying to keep it simple without too many details in explaining that I do not think we are unique.That was the only point I was trying to make.
Just because we were exposed via this board does not mean other timeshares have nothing to hide.

 

[SueDonJ]

I was just trying to keep it simple without too many details in explaining that I do not think we are unique.That was the only point I was trying to make.
Just because we were exposed via this board does not mean other timeshares have nothing to hide.

I do think you're unique in one fashion, Modo, in that it appears to me that your group is asking your BOD to perform in a certain way which is against the current standard applied to all MVCI resorts and which is not being contested by owners at any other MVCI resort.

That one way? Your group is very concerned with the fact that the personal addresses (email and home/office) of your BOD members are no longer available to the owners; rather, the generic aocbod@vacationclub.com has been instituted. This has been one of the points raised here to support this group's claim of "no transparency."

But take a look at all of the Carribean resorts - no personal information is listed at my-vacationclub.com for any BOD members. Same thing for the first ten or so US resorts in that list ... Now whether the recent change came about because MVCI was concerned about privacy legislation and it is coincidental to the issues at MAOC, or whether it can be attributed to the issues at MAOC that your group has raised, might be debatable. But the fact is, a generic BOD email address has become the norm at MVCI resorts.

You owners are unique in protesting that change.

 

[modoaruba]

I do think you're unique in one fashion, Modo, in that it appears to me that your group is asking your BOD to perform in a certain way which is against the current standard applied to all MVCI resorts and which is not being contested by owners at any other MVCI resort.

That one way? Your group is very concerned with the fact that the personal addresses (email and home/office) of your BOD members are no longer available to the owners; rather, the generic aocbod@vacationclub.com has been instituted. This has been one of the points raised here to support this group's claim of "no transparency."

But take a look at all of the Carribean resorts - no personal information is listed at my-vacationclub.com for any BOD members. Same thing for the first ten or so US resorts in that list ... Now whether the recent change came about because MVCI was concerned about privacy legislation and it is coincidental to the issues at MAOC, or whether it can be attributed to the issues at MAOC that your group has raised, might be debatable. But the fact is, a generic BOD email address has become the norm at MVCI resorts.

You owners are unique in protesting that change.

You be unique and tell me something new.:zzz:

 

[SueDonJ]

You be unique and tell me something new.:zzz:

You can either agree or disagree with what's written, right? Or ignore it?

[Edit:] It's been asked over and over again what the motive is for non-owners to post in this thread. How about this for a motive? Marksue claims that this "blog" was put here to provide information to MAOC owners so that they can choose for themselves whether or not they want to join in the efforts being pursued against Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD. Right? Well, how can those owners who stumble onto this "blog" make an informed decision to join or not if the opinions offered by non-owners that are contrary to those of the group are not acknowledged in any way? (For example, the legitimate fact that MVCI no longer makes available at any of its resorts the personal addresses of BOD members has not been either refuted or agreed to by any MAOC owner here, despite the fact that it has been stated repeatedly.) Or, how can it be an informed decision if it's totally disregarded or ignored that some of what's been related throughout this thread by some MAOC owners is not only questionable, but downright incorrect? (For example, the legitimate fact is that the request by Marksue to the BOD for a special meeting was denied because the "petition" was in an incorrect form, and not, as was stated, that the BOD incorrectly denied him and the owners whose names were on the list their rights as stipulated in the bylaws.)

Do you folks want to inform your fellow MAOC owners of what's actually occurring with respect to the issues at your resort, or do you just want names so you can increase the number of owners on your list? What's your motive?

 

[Dean]

I was just trying to keep it simple without too many details in explaining that I do not think we are unique.That was the only point I was trying to make.
Just because we were exposed via this board does not mean other timeshares have nothing to hide.

I kept it very simple and to the point and boiled it down to the basics. The transparency issue is really a smoke screen for the other issues I posted, IMO.

 

[modoaruba]

You can either agree or disagree with what's written, right? Or ignore it?

[Edit:] It's been asked over and over again what the motive is for non-owners to post in this thread. How about this for a motive? Marksue claims that this "blog" was put here to provide information to MAOC owners so that they can choose for themselves whether or not they want to join in the efforts being pursued against Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD. Right? Well, how can those owners who stumble onto this "blog" make an informed decision to join or not if the opinions offered by non-owners that are contrary to those of the group are not acknowledged in any way? (For example, the legitimate fact that MVCI no longer makes available at any of its resorts the personal addresses of BOD members has not been either refuted or agreed to by any MAOC owner here, despite the fact that it has been stated repeatedly.) Or, how can it be an informed decision if it's totally disregarded or ignored that some of what's been related throughout this thread by some MAOC owners is not only questionable, but downright incorrect? (For example, the legitimate fact is that the request by Marksue to the BOD for a special meeting was denied because the "petition" was in an incorrect form, and not, as was stated, that the BOD incorrectly denied him and the owners whose names were on the list their rights as stipulated in the bylaws.)

Do you folks want to inform your fellow MAOC owners of what's actually occurring with respect to the issues at your resort, or do you just want names so you can increase the number of owners on your list? What's your motive?

I guess they just want to increase the list so they can sell them magazines.
Come on.You are beating a dead horse.

 

[SueDonJ]

I guess they just want to increase the list so they can sell them magazines.
Come on.You are beating a dead horse.

Can't that be said about anything that's been posted here, because the situation is pretty much unchanged since Mark first posted in October?

(I notice you still haven't either agreed to or refuted what I wrote about the generic BOD addresses.)

It seems so simple to me - either the evidence, the facts, will support what this group's grievances are, or it won't. In either case, the truth is more important than who is right or wrong.

 

[modoaruba]

Can't that be said about anything that's been posted here, because the situation is pretty much unchanged since Mark first posted in October?

(I notice you still haven't either agreed to or refuted what I wrote about the generic BOD addresses.)

It seems so simple to me - either the evidence, the facts, will support what this group's grievances are, or it won't. In either case, the truth is more important than who is right or wrong.

It's quite clear at this point as to what sides all us posters are on.
I'm not going to influence anyone to change their point of view just like no one here can change mine.
I'm basically bored with reading my own redundant posts.
"What a long strange trip it's been".

Gettin ready for game 2. Go yankees

 

[SueDonJ]

It's quite clear at this point as to what sides all us posters are on.
I'm not going to influence anyone to change their point of view just like no one here can change mine.
I'm basically bored with reading my own redundant posts.
"What a long strange trip it's been".

Gettin ready for game 2. Go yankees

But why has this been allowed to turn into "sides" based on who the posters are as opposed to what should be most important, what the truth is?

I'm heading out to do some food shopping - we can't take watching another mess like the one my team made last night. We'll keep the radio on in the car, though, just in case we have to rush home to watch my team turn the tables and embarrass yours.

 

[ecwinch]

So why we wait for news to break on this issue, what I fail to understand is why people are so willing to believe this about MVCI?

I mean we are not talking about some fly by night timeshare developer. It is a respected name.

What possibly could be their motivation for behaving in the manner that is being attributed to them?

I mean this issue has been escalated to the highest levels of the organization. So the inference is that all of senior management must be in on the conspiracy to cover up the defective building, and to exercise control over the board. And then you have the board, what possibly do attribute their actions to? What motive could they possibly have to behave in the manner that allegations suggest? They are owners just like all of us.

It is the lack of credible proof or rationale explanation on those two issues that boggles my mind. Hopefully when I speak to Allan (we spoke briefly today - but had a bad cell connection), some of this will become clearer. Because I just do not get it from the information that has been presented here. I have 1 + 1, and some else telling me it adds up to 7.

 

[lovearuba]

enron and worldcom

So why we wait for news to break on this issue, what I fail to understand is why people are so willing to believe this about MVCI?

I mean we are not talking about some fly by night timeshare developer. It is a respected name.

What possibly could be their motivation for behaving in the manner that is being attributed to them?

I mean this issue has been escalated to the highest levels of the organization. So the inference is that all of senior management must be in on the conspiracy to cover up the defective building, and to exercise control over the board. And then you have the board, what possibly do attribute their actions to? What motive could they possibly have to behave in the manner that allegations suggest? They are owners just like all of us.

It is the lack of credible proof or rationale explanation on those two issues that boggles my mind. Hopefully when I speak to Allan (we spoke briefly today - but had a bad cell connection), some of this will become clearer. Because I just do not get it from the information that has been presented here. I have 1 + 1, and some else telling me it adds up to 7.

I am a bit more of a skeptic than you. I'm an auditor, there are lots of reasons why large companies do what they do. It generally gets to the almighty dollar. Glad you connected with Allan, hope you finish the conversation. For me this cause started because of the money, now it really is getting owner representation to get transparency on the board.

 

[Dean]

But why has this been allowed to turn into "sides" based on who the posters are as opposed to what should be most important, what the truth is?

Susan, this is a lot like talking about one's college football team. You've got those that can really ONLY see one side and those that are looking at both sides and are more objective. I don't recall any poster that could be construed as only pro Marriott and against the group. However many seem to subscribe to the philosophy, if you're not with them you're against them.

Hopefully when I speak to Allan (we spoke briefly today - but had a bad cell connection), some of this will become clearer. Because I just do not get it from the information that has been presented here. I have 1 + 1, and some else telling me it adds up to 7.

Doubtful unless Allan can produce object information that you can easily verify. Otherwise it just comes down to how convincing he is on the phone. That's not to suggest he's not honest, only that it brings us back to the original issue of motive and interpretation as we've discussed all along. That's one of the reasons I haven't contacted him because I'd want him to back up statements with independent witnesses, documents, etc. We couldn't even get the by-laws to evaluate certain issues. In addition, I realize that convincing a single person he doesn't know isn't really worth that amount of effort even if he could plus he almost certainly couldn't due to the actions involved. That's especially true since I'm convinced the actions are far more likely to hurt the members there than help them even if this is all completely true.

 

[modoaruba]

So why we wait for news to break on this issue, what I fail to understand is why people are so willing to believe this about MVCI?

I mean we are not talking about some fly by night timeshare developer. It is a respected name.

What possibly could be their motivation for behaving in the manner that is being attributed to them?

I mean this issue has been escalated to the highest levels of the organization. So the inference is that all of senior management must be in on the conspiracy to cover up the defective building, and to exercise control over the board. And then you have the board, what possibly do attribute their actions to? What motive could they possibly have to behave in the manner that allegations suggest? They are owners just like all of us.

It is the lack of credible proof or rationale explanation on those two issues that boggles my mind. Hopefully when I speak to Allan (we spoke briefly today - but had a bad cell connection), some of this will become clearer. Because I just do not get it from the information that has been presented here. I have 1 + 1, and some else telling me it adds up to 7.

Examples: AIG, ENRON,Madoff,Fannie May,Freddie Mac,etc.

Credible proof was presented in the Madoff situation but nobody listened until too late.(Just an example).Not to say the same thing is happening here.

Big business=deep pockets=insulation

No incinuation meant here.

This has been long and drawn out as was last night's game.
15 innings no less.Sounds familiar?
At the end the Yankees won.I say it's a sign!

 

[SueDonJ]

Hey Modo, nice win for your team last night! Those are the kinds of games that you can't begrudge either team the win, and you feel bad for both starting pitchers because their sterling work isn't reflected in their starts. Man, what a gem!

Except, WHY OH WHY OH WHY <much wailing and gnashing of teeth> did it have to be AROD?!

 

[modoaruba]

Hey Modo, nice win for your team last night! Those are the kinds of games that you can't begrudge either team the win, and you feel bad for both starting pitchers because their sterling work isn't reflected in their starts. Man, what a gem!

Except, WHY OH WHY OH WHY <much wailing and gnashing of teeth> did it have to be AROD?!

I wonder how Damon would have performed ir he was not told to bunt especially against a rookie pitcher.
The look on his face said it all.

 

[marksue]

(For example, the legitimate fact that MVCI no longer makes available at any of its resorts the personal addresses of BOD members has not been either refuted or agreed to by any MAOC owner here, despite the fact that it has been stated repeatedly.) Or, how can it be an informed decision if it's totally disregarded or ignored that some of what's been related throughout this thread by some MAOC owners is not only questionable, but downright incorrect? (For example, the legitimate fact is that the request by Marksue to the BOD for a special meeting was denied because the "petition" was in an incorrect form, and not, as was stated, that the BOD incorrectly denied him and the owners whose names were on the list their rights as stipulated in the bylaws.)

Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. I am not going to repeat all the steps that were taken to ensure we did what was necessary to call a special meeting. You of course continue to ignore that and take what I say as not true. Of course you are clueless and continue to show it. Why should anyone believe what you have to say. You have yet failed to provide any facts to contradict what I have stated.

What gives MVCI the right to take away owners rights to contact thier board directly? We have always had the right and now MVCI, takes it away. They are the mgmt company and we are the owners. We pay them. Let the owners agree to remove the info.

 

[timeos2]

It is transparancy its possible harrassment

What gives MVCI the right to take away owners rights to contact thier board directly? We have always had the right and now MVCI, takes it away. They are the mgmt company and we are the owners. We pay them. Let the owners agree to remove the info.

"They" have not taken away your right to contact the Board. They have established a mailbox to do just that. For all we know it may have been at the request of the Board. There is nothing to prevent any or all Board members handing out their email / phone/ postal addresses if they so wish but I can sure understand why they wouldn't as it can lead to unwanted direct contact or SPAM or solicitation that plagues most of us even if we caefully shield our email/phone / post addresses. At our resorts we post an individual email address for the Board as well as the individual Board members BUT they are not visible. They are hidden links that will allow anyone that wishes to send a message but never see the email address it actually goes to. We DO NOT publish any mailing addresses or phone numbers except those of the resort for contact again to protect members privacy. To post email or phone or mailing address(es) is simply asking for trouble and I'd always be against it as a Board member (or owner) as long as a reasonable method of contact is provided. It sounds like that has been done. So what's the issue?

 

[marksue]

" At our resorts we post an individual email address for the Board as well as the individual Board members BUT they are not visible. They are hidden links that will allow anyone that wishes to send a message but never see the email address it actually goes to. We DO NOT publish any mailing addresses or phone numbers except those of the resort for contact again to protect members privacy. To post email or phone or mailing address(es) is simply asking for trouble and I'd always be against it as a Board member (or owner) as long as a reasonable method of contact is provided. It sounds like that has been done. So what's the issue?

I would not have a problem with that, but all contact at the OC goes to the GM of the OC who works for Marriott and he answers all the questions. We dont hear fromt he board we hear from Corey.

 

[ecwinch]

Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. I am not going to repeat all the steps that were taken to ensure we did what was necessary to call a special meeting. You of course continue to ignore that and take what I say as not true. Of course you are clueless and continue to show it. Why should anyone believe what you have to say. You have yet failed to provide any facts to contradict what I have stated.

What gives MVCI the right to take away owners rights to contact thier board directly? We have always had the right and now MVCI, takes it away. They are the mgmt company and we are the owners. We pay them. Let the owners agree to remove the info.

Mark,

I do not see any reason for a deliberate personal attack on Sue. We can debate the points here, but calling someone "clueless" is not called for.

And MVCI only takes away what the AOC BoD allows them to. The BoD has accepted the policy of having communication flow through MVCI. I have pointed out several legal reasons that for such a policy, all of which you ignore, as you do with all facts that do not supported your biased thesis.

Thanks

 

[ecwinch]

My Call with Allan

Just spent about 2 hrs on the phone with Allan. I am going to continue to communicate with him. I found Allan to be a very reasonable fellow, but nothing was said that significantly changes my mind. He did clear up some mis-information regarding some the facts that Mark has provided.

Allan was not forced off the board. The by-laws of the AOC have had term limits for a number of years, and Allan's departure was due to those term limits.

Allan does believe, that the MVCI engineered his removal as President of the AOC. I do not disagree with his opinion. For as he outlined in his letter that was posted on this board, he was actively pursuing his own agenda, and had likely become a pain in the a**.

I found Allan to be a very reasonable person to talk to. I do not think he fully endorses all of Mark's posts on this board. In fact, after talking to him, I seriously doubt that he would approve of the extreme negative bias under which Mark provides analysis of events.

I did make the point to Allan that his affiliation with Mark has lent this cause far more creditability than it would have without him. And the extent that Mark has promoted that alliance. He indicated that he would have a conversation with Mark in that regard.

I came away with the feeling that he and Mark are aligned in their goal, but not in method. I specifically asked Allan to come to this board and see what Mark is posting, but he declined. I intend to provide Allan with a highlight reel to make that point clearly.