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

[ecwinch]

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.

Why is that a problem? You are getting a response. If you want to communicate expressly with the Board, mark your communication "FOR BOARD EYES ONLY" or something to that affect. Make it clear that you want a response from the board.

But do not complain if the board delegates the task of responding to Corey.

Nor is the fact that Corey replies without the board seeing the question the smoking gun you want to make it to be. It is only reasonable to see that one of his jobs is to handle the day-to-day. If the question can be handled by him, he should do so. If you do not like his answer, then escalate it to the Board for action.

Again, see my previous post on how communication with your state representative works. How is this any different? It is simply an effective use of resources that in no way impedes your ability to communicate with your board.

To me this is an example of how you want to twist the most benign action as further proof for your crusade.

 

[lovearuba]

lets be nice to each other

Hey, I have an idea. Why dont we try a full day of being nice to each other. Of course that will likely result in a day with no new posts but what do you say? Can you give it a try?

 

[ecwinch]

Hey, I have an idea. Why dont we try a full day of being nice to each other. Of course that will likely result in a day with no new posts but what do you say? Can you give it a try?

Now, what fun would that be?

I would rather people just not resort to pointless name calling. I am not saying we all have to like each other, but there is no need to make it personal.

 

[Eric]

I think at this point it's about saving face. Mark has accomplished nothing at this point and down the road will have to give up. His closing statement will be whinning about how evil Marriott is.

 

[timeos2]

You know where it went and to whom

Why is that a problem? You are getting a response. If you want to communicate expressly with the Board, mark your communication "FOR BOARD EYES ONLY" or something to that affect. Make it clear that you want a response from the board.

When you think about it a centralized mailbox for the Board is actually a better way to be sure they see the correspondence. If you are trying to reach each member individually you may or may not get the address right, they may or may not know what other members have seen. If the whole Board gets the messages from the general Board mailbox they are all acting on the same information and can decide to reply through the designated contact (if there is one) and/or with an individual reply if they are so inclined. It isn't hiding or restricting access by any means.

 

[Dean]

When you think about it a centralized mailbox for the Board is actually a better way to be sure they see the correspondence. If you are trying to reach each member individually you may or may not get the address right, they may or may not know what other members have seen. If the whole Board gets the messages from the general Board mailbox they are all acting on the same information and can decide to reply through the designated contact (if there is one) and/or with an individual reply if they are so inclined. It isn't hiding or restricting access by any means.

This is the way many resorts handle things, if they even give you access at all. I think the issue is that some perceive this move was to give less access related to the issues at hand. It may be true, I don't know, even if it is it's the question is whether it was done punitively or due to harassment. What I've seen in this thread would suggest the latter IF there's a relationship.

 

[modoaruba]

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.

I am glad you spoke with Allan.At least you see some substance presented from a reasonable man.
Critics on this board who have never spoke to him point out protocol which I cannot deny them.
At least you have an opportunity to hear another point of view.
This is exactly where I stand,betwixt. Where do you go from here?

I gave it some thought and realized that if we live in a democracy,there is an independent investigative group that would search out the accusations and see if there was substance to them.
Obviously in our situation the crafting of protocol does not define such an avenue.
It's a game of chess as to how does the group present it's case to the owners who do not know what's going on and to do so by following the current regulations and how does Marriott prevent that from happening by also following the current regulations.

 

[modoaruba]

Hey, I have an idea. Why dont we try a full day of being nice to each other. Of course that will likely result in a day with no new posts but what do you say? Can you give it a try?

Was I just not nice?
Yankees won again. Of course I am nice.

 

[marksue]

I think at this point it's about saving face. Mark has accomplished nothing at this point and down the road will have to give up. His closing statement will be whinning about how evil Marriott is.

More has been accomplished by this effort than you have probably accomplished in your life.

 

[SueDonJ]

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.

None of us can be said to be actually "clueless" about the fact that your submission to request a special meeting was denied because it was in an incorrect form, and not because your rights as stipulated in the bylaws were infringed upon. That conclusion was formed by me and several other people based on the response letter that was quoted in your post here. It's not opinion, it's fact.

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.

You have a right and means to contact your BOD. Unfortunately, the charges that have been alleged and actions that have been taken by your group against Marriott/MVCI/your BOD have resulted in all of your questions related to those allegations being directed to one spokesperson. That's SOP whenever a company is forced into an adversarial role, and should have been expected.

 

[modoaruba]

Hey, I have an idea. Why dont we try a full day of being nice to each other. Of course that will likely result in a day with no new posts but what do you say? Can you give it a try?

I got to quote you again,sorry it didn't happen. Got some serious issues out there.

 

[SueDonJ]

Was I just not nice?
Yankees won again. Of course I am nice.

Man oh man, things are not looking good for the RedSox at all. They need to turn things around right quick if they're going to have any chance at all.

24 straight innings with no runs, ugh. Of course, we expected that the Yankees weren't going to stand for the 0-8 record with the Sox before this series. But again, man oh man - this is tough to take!

 

[jimf41]

I gave it some thought and realized that if we live in a democracy,there is an independent investigative group that would search out the accusations and see if there was substance to them.

I think this only my second post on this thread. Way back on page 21 or so I suggested that maybe it should be discontinued. I have kept up with it though as I own a Caribbean resort although not in Aruba. I think Modo's comment above hits a key point. It seems as though most folks here think their resorts are or should be managed in a democracy much like the USA is run. Well that would be a disaster both for the USA and MVCI. The USA is a republic not a democracy. Democracy's are essentially mob rule. We govern by the rule of law not the wishes of the majority. The majority can change the law but it can't violate it.

It's seems MarkSue's advocates started out trying to accomplish their goal in a democratic way and then ran into MVCI that said no we follow the rules. That attitude on MVCI's part seemed to infuriate some folks. It appears that Marksue is now taking a different tact and following the rules in order to effect change. Much better way to go IMO. I share the opinion of some here that he doesn't stand much of a chance in the long run but that does not mean that his cause is not just or that he won't eventually prevail.

I hope this eventually has a happy ending for all of the owners at the Ocean Club.

 

[ecwinch]

More has been accomplished by this effort than you have probably accomplished in your life.

Mark, since you know almost nothing about me, how are you qualified to enter into unfounded speculation like that? You do not know my professional background, record of community service, or my military record. You know almost nothing about what I have accomplished in life. Did you know I worked as a bomb disposal technician for four years, with over 82 incident response calls? That I worked US Secret Service protection details for the Pope, presidential candidates, and US Presidents/Vice-Presidents.

That I created a company that produces the #1 software product in it's market, and created jobs for 25+ people.

And just on TUG, you are ignoring my activity in other threads, supporting the efforts of owners that are combating developers who actually are abusing the rights of owners. See how many posts I have made in the Southcape, Sandcastle, and Pollard Brook threads, in an effort to help those owners sort through all the legal documents. For those concerned owner groups recognize that non-owners can actually help their efforts, rather than having their opinions diminished.

This just goes to how you will use speculation to diminish the opinion of others. You are riding Allan's coat-tails, and the only thing you have accomplished is the needless expense of your HOA defending themselves from your agenda. At least Allan conducted himself with honor and dignity. You seem to have adopted a "the ends justify the means" approach to this crusade.

 

[ecwinch]

When you think about it a centralized mailbox for the Board is actually a better way to be sure they see the correspondence. If you are trying to reach each member individually you may or may not get the address right, they may or may not know what other members have seen. If the whole Board gets the messages from the general Board mailbox they are all acting on the same information and can decide to reply through the designated contact (if there is one) and/or with an individual reply if they are so inclined. It isn't hiding or restricting access by any means.

You need to borrow the "special" goggles from Mark. Then you will see it differently.

 

[ecwinch]

I am glad you spoke with Allan.At least you see some substance presented from a reasonable man.
Critics on this board who have never spoke to him point out protocol which I cannot deny them.
At least you have an opportunity to hear another point of view.
This is exactly where I stand,betwixt. Where do you go from here?

I think that is a great question. I think Mark has done sufficient damage that it is going to be difficult for any BoD to be effective at the Ocean Club. Even if Mark was to stand-down today, so much rhetoric and innuedo has been created, that it will color the operation of the board for years to come.

The only thing I can suggest is that a group of moderate owners form, and attempt to reach a compromise between the two groups. I think there are numerous non-judicial methods that can be used to resolve the differences and conduct an independent evaluation of the grievances. But it is difficult to have that dialog or to pursue non-judicial means, when you have a predisposition for legal action. And when you use slander and character assassination as your principle weapon.

As part of my compilation for Allan, I have been reviewing the old posts in this thread. Looking back, you can see that Mark intended for this to end up in court all along. Specifically look at just his posts in the month of Oct/Nov, and see how frequently he mentions "class-action".

As the saying goes "anger is a good servant, but a poor master". I think Mark emotions needlessly color this crusade, and prompt rash action. The problem calls for a more moderate approach.

But I am a non-owner, so my opinion is meaningless.

 

[marksue]

Mark, since you know almost nothing about me, how are you qualified to enter into unfounded speculation like that? You do not know my professional background, record of community service, or my military record. You know almost nothing about what I have accomplished in life. Did you know I worked as a bomb disposal technician for four years, with over 82 incident response calls? That I worked US Secret Service protection details for the Pope, presidential candidates, and US Presidents/Vice-Presidents.

That I created a company that produces the #1 software product in it's market, and created jobs for 25+ people.

And just on TUG, you are ignoring my activity in other threads, supporting the efforts of owners that are combating developers who actually are abusing the rights of owners. See how many posts I have made in the Southcape, Sandcastle, and Pollard Brook threads, in an effort to help those owners sort through all the legal documents. For those concerned owner groups recognize that non-owners can actually help their efforts, rather than having their opinions diminished.

This just goes to how you will use speculation to diminish the opinion of others. You are riding Allan's coat-tails, and the only thing you have accomplished is the needless expense of your HOA defending themselves from your agenda. At least Allan conducted himself with honor and dignity. You seem to have adopted a "the ends justify the means" approach to this crusade.

My comment was not about you, it was in response to the other Eric's comments. You should have read the Quote on top .

And now you are making inuendo's that I am riding Allan's coat-tails. You and everyone else can attack me all you want I believe in what I started which was long before I met Allan. We as owners have heard more than we would ahve without this effort.

For the longest time I tired to do this with out legal, but MVCI and the BOD decided that was the route they wanted to take. They were the first to respond with a lawyer.

 

[Dean]

More has been accomplished by this effort than you have probably accomplished in your life.

That's a pretty strong statement given that from what I can see, nothing good has been accomplished as of yet in a positive way and as pointed out, a lot of ill will has been created that will likely be impossible to get past for many including Marriott, the BOD and a core set of members. My prediction was that Marriott would not be proven to have been dishonest, the roughly 50% offer for Marriott to pay toward the roof repair was fair and about the max that was going to happen if you account for the other costs and there was no amount of "transparency" that was going to rebuild the relationship. I have no doubt that Marriott's on paper amount is likely to go up but I have gone on record that even if they pay the full amount of the SA but are not proven in the wrong, that this effort is a failure and when you consider the other costs involved, is no better than where you started. I stand by that interpretation but I have no doubt that if that is the outcome, some will some here and claim victory. I also think that the group has potential liability for Marriott's and the resorts legal expenses. If I were a member, felt these actions cost me money and was aware of certain people that had promoted it, I'd have no problem going after them personally.

It's unfortunate you've gone from discussing the issues to personal attacks just because some do not take your interpretation as the gospel. I do realize Eric has also made some strong statements so if your personal attacks had only been to him, I likely would have given you some leeway. You may indeed be correct at every turn, it's just that no real proof has been offered to date to this group. Hopefully you can prove your case in court and get MVCI and not the resort to pay all expenses for both groups so it's only the shareholders at risk and not the members.

 

[marksue]

Dean,

I don't disagree with you about the attacks. I have tried to ignore most of the comments regarding me but a few I felt I needed to respond to. It is not my natue to do that. I will try to not attack moving forward, but if I am personally attacked then I will attack back.

I am trying to stay with the issues here.

 

[Dean]

Dean,

I don't disagree with you about the attacks. I have tried to ignore most of the comments regarding me but a few I felt I needed to respond to. It is not my natue to do that. I will try to not attack moving forward, but if I am personally attacked then I will attack back.

I am trying to stay with the issues here.

Great, I'm glad you took my comments in a positive way and commend you for the post and effort. However, I think you have taken comments about your actions as comments about you personally. While closely related in your mind, they are somewhat separate to us or at least to me. IMO, comments about your actions are fair game on a thread such as this, you've put yourself in that situation. I, for one, am wishing you all the best though my main support has to be for the owners at your resort and Marriott owners in general and unfortunately, I don't personally see your efforts as helpful for either group in the long run unless you can indeed produce a smoking gun that does far beyond just the roof and SA issue.

 

[Eric]

Personal attacks are not allowed on TUG. I must have hit a chord. My opinion was on your accomplishments or lack of them, in this venture, not you personally. As far as what you have accomplished here, lets guess, it's a moral victory ? LOL, please. I will state it again. As of today, you have ZERO to show for all your efforts. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

More has been accomplished by this effort than you have probably accomplished in your life.

 

[ecwinch]

My comment was not about you, it was in response to the other Eric's comments. You should have read the Quote on top .

And now you are making inuendo's that I am riding Allan's coat-tails. You and everyone else can attack me all you want I believe in what I started which was long before I met Allan. We as owners have heard more than we would ahve without this effort.

For the longest time I tired to do this with out legal, but MVCI and the BOD decided that was the route they wanted to take. They were the first to respond with a lawyer.

Yes, I saw my name and thought you were referring to me. And while you did not make that statement to me directly, I think my point is valid. You know no more about this Eric than you do the other.

I am not making innuendo, I am stating a well-formed opinion based on my conversation with Allan. You are absolutely correct that Allan was not associated with you until well after this crusade was launched. I would only ask the objective readers to look at how you recast your communications with him in your early posts.

And if, in your first communication with MVCI, you made any indication that legal means were going to be used, then YOU immediately slammed the door on non-judicial resolution. As soon as you raised that possibility, it almost required them to communicate with you through legal counsel. It is only common-sense to do so when threatened with legal action.

So, because I want to remain objective and open-minded, I will offer you the opportunity to forward your communication with the board on this matter, and their responses. I have made similar requests in the past, so I will understand the response of "he does not have to show you anything, you do not own there". And this should not be a legal problem, as this is your communication to them, and is correspondence they already would have.

Your call. If you want this question to be resolved, then someone outside your circle needs to vet your allegations.

 

[ecwinch]

Personal attacks are not allowed on TUG. I must have hit a chord. My opinion was on your accomplishments or lack of them, in this venture, not you personally. As far as what you have accomplished here, lets guess, it's a moral victory ? LOL, please. I will state it again. As of today, you have ZERO to show for all your efforts. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

Eric, your original observation was not a personal attack. He made no observation about his intelligence or the quality of his character. Mark's sphere of influence is crumbling, and he is lashing out. His response to Dean is just an attempt to rationalize his inappropriate behavior.

 

[Dean]

His response to Dean is just an attempt to rationalize his inappropriate behavior.

Maybe, I'd like to think it was a sincere attempt to get back to the issues. I personally have to give him the benefit of the doubt it that regard.

 

[Luckybee]

As an owner at MOC I for one dont think that Mark needs to show anyone here anything nor imho should he. The owners are who count here ! What he chooses to do is up to him. I have a hard time understanding what purpose is served by providing anyone here with the bylaws, documents , copies of correspondence, reports or any other material that may later be evidence so that it can continually be ripped apart by those who have no interest in the property. Why not simply continue with the steps already in play and see what the results are?