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

[Dean]

The public beach is exactly the area we are talking about. SC owners are not allowed under the new rules to use the OC chairs or palapas and visa versa. So by that action the SC owners no longer overcrowd the OC beach. In exchange the OC owners no longer use the SC pool. Of course an SC owner could come over and lay in the sand ....This was well monitored by security repeatedly when we were there in Nov/Dec a month ago....we saw quite a number of "blue towel" holders being requested to vacate by security. Of course if you had friends at the OC you could simply use your friends towels but it certainly did dramatically cut down on the overcrowding.

We'll have to draw a distinction between use of the beach and use of the equipment. The beaches in Aruba are public though I'm not clear on the technical answer of where the beach begins. For the public beach, all they could enforce would be use of the equipment and they should enforce that IMO for both groups. They could lay in the sand or they could bring their own equipment, chairs, etc.

 

[Luckybee]

We'll have to draw a distinction between use of the beach and use of the equipment. The beaches in Aruba are public though I'm not clear on the technical answer of where the beach begins. For the public beach, all they could enforce would be use of the equipment and they should enforce that IMO for both groups. They could lay in the sand or they could bring their own equipment, chairs, etc.

You are absolutely correct ...equipment is all they can enforce on the public beach(which as I understand it is the majority of the beach). Bottom line though is that it does have the desired effect of keeping the OC beach much less crowded(since Aruba is a fly in destination not too many would bring there own chairs/umbrellas....and even if they decided to buy there with the strong breeze they'd have a hard time finding heavy enough chairs to be able to effectively use them...as I said before you could lay in the sand but that is pretty darn infrequent in Aruba) .
I would strongly doubt that they need to enforce it(other than for the pool) the other way around since I cant imagine why anyone at the OC would want to use the SC beach unless of course they're visiting friends/family in which case as I said before the easy solution to that is not to use your own color respective towels.

 

[marksue]

I would strongly doubt that they need to enforce it(other than for the pool) the other way around since I cant imagine why anyone at the OC would want to use the SC beach unless of course they're visiting friends/family in which case as I said before the easy solution to that is not to use your own color respective towels.

They are enforcing if you have friends staying at another the other resort. When we shared a hut with friends from the the SC, security told me to go to the towel hut and get additional OC towels. When I stayed at the huts on the SC side my friends got us SC towels.

 

[marksue]

So as I've said before, be thankful you are getting reimbursed for even a portion of the work. Even when you are proven right it doesn't mean you'll actually see a penny. Take whats offered and run to the bank. It's doubtful that a costly fight will get you anymore in the long run and you very well may end up with less.

Marriott did not paid anything in repairing the 200k worth of damage to the resort. It all came out of the owners pockets.

Actually this is a better example of how the facts are being distorted to fit the argument.

As I clearly noted in my post, I was there in Dec 2008. The properties for this JPEG file show it was taken on Oct. 22, 2008 at 10:27am.

Just validates my broader point on how the actual facts are being "slanted" to fit the argument. And completely ignores my point was the roof leakage is being grossly over-generalized, not that it never occurred.

.

How are the facts slanted, you state you saw no damage after going to the resort early Dec. Yet these photos are actual photos at the time the storm occured. Looks to me like the facts are right in front and the slant was you saying there was no damage seeing it 2 weeks later.

 

[timeos2]

The never ending guarantee?

Marriott did not paid anything in repairing the 200k worth of damage to the resort. It all came out of the owners pockets.


.

How are the facts slanted, you state you saw no damage after going to the resort early Dec. Yet these photos are actual photos at the time the storm occured. Looks to me like the facts are right in front and the slant was you saying there was no damage seeing it 2 weeks later.

200K isn't even the likely amount of any insurance deductible for most medium to large timeshare projects. Are the owners going to go back and look for every $100 expenditure and expect a rebate? That most certainly falls in the category of out of pocket expenses.

As already pointed out a photo of damage can look far worse than it really is. And when dealing with extraordinary weather such as hurricanes all bets are off. No one can predict or guarantee no damage will occur when dealing with such forces of nature.

 

[ecwinch]

How are the facts slanted, you state you saw no damage after going to the resort early Dec. Yet these photos are actual photos at the time the storm occured. Looks to me like the facts are right in front and the slant was you saying there was no damage seeing it 2 weeks later.

Here is my post:

"Just to have a clear account of the facts, I was at the Surf Club in Dec 08, right after Omar. I visited the Ocean Club on a number of occasions during my visit, including periods when it was raining. I did not notice any buckets in the lobby."

Of course to distort the truth and further your personal agenda, you want to replace the word "buckets" with "damage" to give my statement an entirely different meaning.

This is not surprising. As evidenced by this thread, you perform a similar "restatement" of virtually every communication from the AOC BoD to a similar outcome.

 

[lovearuba]

buckets

Here is my post:

"Just to have a clear account of the facts, I was at the Surf Club in Dec 08, right after Omar. I visited the Ocean Club on a number of occasions during my visit, including periods when it was raining. I did not notice any buckets in the lobby."

Of course to distort the truth and further your personal agenda, you want to replace the word "buckets" with "damage" to give my statement an entirely different meaning.

This is not surprising. As evidenced by this thread, you perform a similar "restatement" of virtually every communication from the AOC BoD to a similar outcome.

The buckets I saw were in the hallways so you would have to walk through the area where the rooms are which is not something you could see from the lobby. I personally didnt see issues with the lobby other than the fact that the water was coming through the doors that led outside. It was not the same occassion that I saw buckets in the hallways. I only go once a year so can tell you I've experienced it twice on two separate trips.

 

[modoaruba]

suggestion

Since the majority of owners have never met nor know anything about the BOD,and we vote for these representatives to do the right thing on our behalf,how about a video of the meetings to be accessable to us owners.
Either on our MVCI site or whatever.
Unfortunately only a few have the privilage of being present at these meetings.We rely on very few opinions as to what happened at those meetings.
How's that for transparancy?Would Marriott be open to this idea?
I for one would love to see what goes on and what my rep is doing for me.
There has been a lot of discussion as to the rules that the BOD has all these powers since we voted for them and we should abide by their suggestions.
If we don't like what we see,the next election would be easier to qualify a more educated vote.
I guarantee that this will not happen.

I dare an owner to tape the meetings and put it on youtube.
Sends shivers down my spine already.

 

[ecwinch]

Have you made this suggestion to the board? If not, I would encourage you do to do so. Given the size of the AOC membership, it might not be cost effective, but you never know until you try.

I can only tell that you that WorldMark does webcast their annual meeting and archives it to their website. But WM has 260k members.

And if you guys at the AOC think you have a developer controlled board, with WorldMark, four of the five board members are current or former employees. It is one reason that these spurious claims regarding the AOC board do not reasonate with me.

 

[lovearuba]

interesting idea

Have you made this suggestion to the board? If not, I would encourage you do to do so. Given the size of the AOC membership, it might not be cost effective, but you never know until you try.

I can only tell that you that WorldMark does webcast their annual meeting and archives it to their website. But WM has 260k members.

And if you guys at the AOC think you have a developer controlled board, with WorldMark, four of the five board members are current or former employees. It is one reason that these spurious claims regarding the AOC board do not reasonate with me.

I think its worth a shot.

 

[marksue]

Looks like Marriott or the board, not sure who is paying, is wasting money again by hiring a Parliamentarian for the meeting on Saturday. It’s bad enough they are holding this special meeting on Saturday so few owners can show up, since it is the major transition day. Now more money being spent on this person. Until the last meeting this person was never there and the president ran the meeting. Why is the board so afraid, to let the few owners who can be there, speak about their property and their concerns.

 

[SueDonJ]

It's not wasted money at all if it serves the purpose of protecting the agenda of the Special Meeting.

This is just one more instance of Marriott putting your group on notice that it will utilize any and every bylaw and management contract protection for itself when defending its actions related to MAOC. It makes perfect business sense considering that they've been threatened by your group in the past with legal action.

Does your attorney have a problem, I mean does s/he see an illegality, with a Parliamentarian being present at Saturday's meeting?

 

[timeos2]

Better safe than sorry

Looks like Marriott or the board, not sure who is paying, is wasting money again by hiring a Parliamentarian for the meeting on Saturday. It’s bad enough they are holding this special meeting on Saturday so few owners can show up, since it is the major transition day. Now more money being spent on this person. Until the last meeting this person was never there and the president ran the meeting. Why is the board so afraid, to let the few owners who can be there, speak about their property and their concerns.

Very common practice when the threat of lawsuits are thrown around. It is for everyomes protection that the rules are followed to a "t" and if it costs a few dollars so be it. Better than holding a special meeting that ends up being meaningless because of parliamentary process errors. The cost of that would be far more than whatever this represents.

 

[modoaruba]

YOUTUBE THE MEETING:whoopie:

END THE SPECULATION

 

[timeos2]

They have a limit

YOUTUBE THE MEETING:whoopie:

END THE SPECULATION

Unless the meeting lasts for 8 minutes or less you can't post it to YouTube

 

[SueDonJ]

YOUTUBE THE MEETING:whoopie:

END THE SPECULATION

I'm not sure I understand how this relates to Mark's post. His problem seems to be that the Parliamentarian will prevent any owners who are present at the meeting from speaking about any issues that are unrelated to the stated agenda (this, from the notice posted at my-vacationclub.com.) At least I think that's what his problem is, going by his reaction to the last meeting where a Parliamentarian was present.

Whether the meeting can be taped or not wouldn't have any impact on what topics are allowed to be brought up by either Marriott or any owner(s).

 

[modoaruba]

I'm not sure I understand how this relates to Mark's post. His problem seems to be that the Parliamentarian will prevent any owners who are present at the meeting from speaking about any issues that are unrelated to the stated agenda (this, from the notice posted at my-vacationclub.com.) At least I think that's what his problem is, going by his reaction to the last meeting where a Parliamentarian was present.

Whether the meeting can be taped or not wouldn't have any impact on what topics are allowed to be brought up by either Marriott or any owner(s).

This relates to anyone's post about the meetings.
All we hear are other's interpretations as to what happened.Or what will happen.Or what can happen.
If we all can bare witness to what is being said,how it's being said,etc.
we then can have a better discussion amongst ourselves based on actual facts.
A lot of what is being said here is speculative at best.
Regardless of what Mark thinks or anyone else thinks,being present at the meeting will lay to rest the speculations.EH?

 

[SueDonJ]

This relates to anyone's post about the meetings.
All we hear are other's interpretations as to what happened.Or what will happen.Or what can happen.
If we all can bare witness to what is being said,how it's being said,etc.
we then can have a better discussion amongst ourselves based on actual facts.
A lot of what is being said here is speculative at best.
Regardless of what Mark thinks or anyone else thinks,being present at the meeting will lay to rest the speculations.EH?

I think taping meetings, as a general rule, is a pretty good idea actually. Have you looked closely at the ownership documents to determine if there is a legal impediment to doing so, and, if not, who would assume the costs for it? On the other hand, also as a general rule, Minutes of a Meeting have served as legal recordings of meetings for hundreds of years. It isn't necessary to tape-record a meeting in order to know the details of why a certain outcome happens at a certain meeting. It's possible that taping doesn't happen routinely even in this electronic age because no party wants to assume the costs for what is ultimately unnecessary.

But with respect to this particular upcoming meeting on Saturday, especially, the cost of taping and sharing the info would be a total waste, IMO. There is ONE thing on the the agenda, the vote for the bylaw amendment to include postal and email addresses of the owners in the Association's Shareholder Register. Owners were mailed info packets that included proxy forms and instructions so that absent owners' votes will be counted along with those of any owners who are present. Why do you need to see a tape of a vote count when the numbers will be included in Minutes and the count can be validated by written proxies and the Inspector's tally?

Unless of course you're looking for some reason to cry "FOUL!" when an owner who is present tries to introduce another topic during the meeting and the Parliamentarian denies it, which would be evidence of Marriott wrongdoing somehow? That's what happened with the last meeting that was overseen by a Parliamentarian, I know, but with this one there shouldn't be any confusion at all over what topics can be introduced because the info packet mailed to every owner included this:

(bolding theirs) Note: In accordance with Section 5.4 of the Bylaws, business transacted at this Special Meeting of Members shall be confined to the objects stated in the official Notice of Special Meeting.

 

[modoaruba]

Minutes of meetings do not show the spirit nor demeanors of those present which sometimes shows more than what is actually said as can be seen by being present.IMO.

 

[SueDonJ]

Sometimes I want "just the facts, ma'am", Modo, don't want things to be cluttered with emotions and moods and inferences. Legal actions would be one of those sometimes.

Once more you and I are different in our approaches - doesn't make one of us wrong and the other right, just different. Interesting.

 

[modoaruba]

A picture speaks a hundred or a thousand,I don't remember,words.

 

[SueDonJ]

True, but in this case I'd only be needing two or three.

"It passed." "It didn't pass." All the rest would be background noise.

 

[modoaruba]

I see your point of view.
But being an owner,I WOULD like to see the emotions of those who are representing me.
Sometimes I am a good judge of character.If I don't like what I SEE,I don't vote them in again.
To ME,it's more than just a yes or nay vote.A monkey can do that.
I also look for character.

 

[SueDonJ]

But aren't you representing yourself in this one meeting, Modo? I'm assuming you filled out your proxy statement and included your yes or no vote to be counted? I wouldn't expect that anybody but the Parliamentarian and the Inspector will have an active role in this meeting, and even their actions/words will be extremely limited to their assigned jobs. It's been made pretty clear that this isn't designed to be, and will not be allowed to devolve into, a give-and-take meeting by any stretch of the imagination.

Point taken, though, that it could be helpful for you (any owner, really) to be able to review a tape recording of an informational meeting in which your BOD members and/or Marriott personnel are active participants.

 

[modoaruba]

Point taken, though, that it could be helpful for you (any owner, really) to be able to review a tape recording of an informational meeting in which your BOD members and/or Marriott personnel are active participants.[/QUOTE]

Thank you.My point taken by you is appreciated.