Pahio Kauai Beach Villas board election

[ecwinch]

Jeff - help me understand why you feel that Wyndham under any obligation to answer any questions about the deeds they own at that resort?

 

[KYHOME]

Jeff - I believe your observations about Lou are equally true of many of the independent owners that sat on the BoD for years - including Trish. For all the years I have owned at KBV, the BoD's efforts regarding communication with owners have been minimal and same is true for transparency. For years I have read the rumor about the pool funds being diverted to Bali Hai - something that we now know is false. But why was this not common knowledge among the many of the devoted KBV owners who frequent this forum?

For the 10 years that Wyndham had the mgt contract, the BoD approved the dues increases that mgt requested and was responsible for ensuring the funds were being effectively utilized. If Wyndham was not effectively managing the resort as you imply - where was the communication from the BoD members on these matters? How effectively were the incumbent BOD members exercising oversight of Wyndham as manager?

You have posted about how Trish is the only BoD member we can count. If that is true, why does she seemingly place such a low priority on owner communication. Why cant she take the time to communicate with the KBV owners on a more regular basis and why the lack of communication for the past 10 years?

ps. Here is one issue I would like to hear some communication from the BoD about - currently what is happening with weeks from defaulting owners? GPR seems to be renting weeks out basically for mf. Is that sustainable in the long-run? Seems to me that will always result in a drain on Club finances unless GPR is able to rent out 100% of the inventory and take no commission on the rentals.

I realize I am late in responding to this post, sorry about that. I want to tell you some facts about communication with owners between 2011 and 2017 - - the time that I was a BOD member. Communication was a frequent topic. The problem was that there was no easy way to communicate with owners, and what we attempted failed.
1) Email addresses: We didn't have a decent list of email addresses and we repeatedly worked with Wyndham (WYN) to try to improve what we had. (Finally, in the past 1.5 years we have a decent email list and a process set up for using it).
2) Website: Getting something posted on the website that existed was discussed many times, but it never happened. I am sure that if any of you recall that website was not nearly as friendly as what we have now! (Building a good website for KBV was part of our discussions with Grand Pacific).
3) Mailings: Even our regular mailings of a KBV newsletter went by the wayside - - this was another Action Item on the Action Item list that was not completed....

During this time I did have a subscription to the Timeshare magazine - - and I did read it. However, I was not aware of TUG until the later part of my term. That could have been an avenue for communication to owners who are active here. I really don't know if other BOD members were aware of TUG at that time.

All I am saying is that being able to communicate with owners was a constant challenge. It was not ignored. Now, it's a different ballgame. We have access to email and snail mail addresses of owners as well as a good website that even holds meeting minutes and other important documents for all owners to see. From my perspective, we got all this with a better management company - - Grand Pacific. Your Board can produce much more and be more transparent with the right tools - - and a good management partner. I know we were not perfect, and there are things that could have been done differently. We can debate that all day long. However, I just want to state that communication was not ignored in the past.

Regarding your P.S. question. I do know that Grand Pacific and your current BOD is working on this very issue. It is understood that rentals aren't a long term solution. But let's also know that it is delivering the desired result right now - - KBV's rental revenue for 2017 (after deducting rental commissions/costs) was $651k. Bad Debt expense for the same time period was $709. As you can see, net rental income came close to covering bad debt. I can assure you this NEVER happened when WYN was our management partner - - and they held the Rental contract as well! Net rental income for 2018 was projected to exceed 2017 based on the performance thus far this year. However, I don't know what effect the volcano on the Big Island (Hawaii) has had or could have on 2018 rentals.

 

[KYHOME]

not only was the contract terminated, but was handed to gpr, there were no bids released to amy other company. ms harrington took it upon herself to seek out gpr, offer them a contract, sign the contract before the board even voted hmmmm

For the record, Here are the facts about the timing on signing the contract with Grand Pacific:
1) The final version of the contract was sent to BOD members via email on 2/18/16. The date on the agreement was blank.
2) BOD members received a separate email on 2/18/16 to notify them of the special meeting to vote on the contract. The meeting was scheduled to be held on 2/23/17.
3) The decision to execute the Grand Pacific contract was made during the special meeting on 2/23/17.
4) On 2/25/17 Board members received the signed copy of the contract from Trish Harrington. The date on the agreement was February 23, 2018.

There is nothing in the facts that indicates that the Grand Pacific contract was signed before the board even voted....I have the documents to back up everything I have said here.

 

[Jeff From Salem]

Jeff - help me understand why you feel that Wyndham under any obligation to answer any questions about the deeds they own at that resort?

Because when they agreed to take over the deeds, it was under the understanding that they would sell them, Eric. David Walters understood that Wyndham's powerful sales team would have better tools than he ultimately had for selling the leftover deeds. The deeds would get into individual owners' hands who would pay the maintenance fees, and Wyndham would make their commission off of the sales. Everybody wins.

But Wyndham instead chose to use their mass ownership of the deeds to undermine the wishes and aggregate power of the individual owner. We've gone from a representative democracy to practically an autocracy.

When Linda Kolstad chose to merely identify Wyndham as a generic "Bulk Owner", it was part of Wyndham's attempt to mislead the owners. As I mentioned in my previous post, an outspoken owner didn't even know that Linda worked for Wyndham. She didn't feel that it was important for people to know that. She didn't let people know that she personally owned no deeds, no property at KBV. She gets paid by Wyndham to represent their interests. Those interests may or may not coincide with those of individual owners. She is paid to do what Wyndham wants her to do. I suspect that most individual owners are not being paid by a corporate interest to represent them, nor are they representing 20% of that corporate interest.

But the mission of a corporation with stockholders to make a profit, to make money. An individual owner's mission is to have as a good a vacation as possible in the least costly way. Profit doesn't enter into it. If a corporation is at the heart of the resort, then their interest potentially is to make as much money as possible off of individual owners. If their power is strong enough, the company can manipulate the running of the resort with little or no transparency. In contrast, a completely individual owner controlled board oversees the management company, meaning the owners continue to be the boss of the management company.

If Wyndham continues to hold the ~20+% of the deeds and then takes back control as the management company, we lose transparency, any checks and balances. It's not a good situation.

So to answer your question, my question was about transparency. If I'm on the board, and I have ulterior motives other than those typical of individual owners wanting the best run, least expensive vacation property, you ought to know about it, and you'd want to know about it.

 

[Jeff From Salem]

For the record, Here are the facts about the timing on signing the contract with Grand Pacific:
1) The final version of the contract was sent to BOD members via email on 2/18/16. The date on the agreement was blank.
2) BOD members received a separate email on 2/18/16 to notify them of the special meeting to vote on the contract. The meeting was scheduled to be held on 2/23/17.
3) The decision to execute the Grand Pacific contract was made during the special meeting on 2/23/17.
4) On 2/25/17 Board members received the signed copy of the contract from Trish Harrington. The date on the agreement was February 23, 2018.

There is nothing in the facts that indicates that the Grand Pacific contract was signed before the board even voted....I have the documents to back up everything I have said here.

So, again, Lou Columbo puts out a mean and erroneous post - "not only was the contract terminated, but was handed to gpr, there were no bids released to amy other company. ms harrington took it upon herself to seek out gpr, offer them a contract, sign the contract before the board even voted hmmmm"

Why is Lou so interested in undermining those who are trying to keep power in the hands of individual owners?? The only reason that individual owners have ANY power is that there is essentially a union of owners, supposed to be led by the IOA board. If you undermine the power of the individuals in favor of a corporate entity, then the individual owner is completely at the mercy of the corporate interest. I'm sorry, but it's not personal. It's strictly business. Checks and balances are about keeping those who are more powerful, who have more power, in check. The 4th Estate, the press, was designed to be a check over those with power in government. The U.S. Congress was designed to be a check and balance over the President. I fear that we are losing our focus here. The more we muddy the water, the more we lose focus on our mission. We need to work to ensure that union of individual owners maintains its power, its ability to be the check and balance.

I personally know that Grand Pacific wasn't the only management company explored when the BOD was looking at a new management company in early 2016.

And then Wyndham's first move later that year was to use their votes to overthrow Trish Harrington as President of the AOAO, gain company control of the board, and keep their contract intact, knowing that they were about to get voted out as the manager of the AOAO functions. That's not a subjective judgment. It's fact, as we can see in the Wyndham's Smoking Gun memo posted on the saveKBV.org website. Wyndham used their power for their own private gains, not to empower the wishes of the individual owners and entities. Do y'all not see either an ethical and/or moral issue with Wyndham's parent company manipulating the board to insure that their resort management company maintains control of the resort management contract over the wish of the individual owners of the board?

Jeff

 

[ecwinch]

I personally know that Grand Pacific wasn't the only management company explored when the BOD was looking at a new management company in early 2016.

Ok - what other companies were asked to submit bids on the management contract at KBV? That is what Lou reported - ie. that the contract was not put out for competitive bid. Do you have personal knowledge that bid packets were provided to other companies? If so, which ones?

Because when they agreed to take over the deeds, it was under the understanding that they would sell them, Eric. David Walters understood that Wyndham's powerful sales team would have better tools than he ultimately had for selling the leftover deeds. The deeds would get into individual owners' hands who would pay the maintenance fees, and Wyndham would make their commission off of the sales. Everybody wins.

Do you have copy of the agreement between Pahio and Wyndham that outlines this understanding?

And I thought the issue at hand was the intervals from defaulting owners. Your response seems to be about developer inventory that Wyndham acquired from Pahio. They are apples and oranges. One is a contract with Pahio, the other is a contract between the HOA and Wyndham.

Why is Lou so interested in undermining those who are trying to keep power in the hands of individual owners??

You might ask yourself that same question, since you undermined him to help get Jack elected.

 

[Jeff From Salem]

Ok - what other companies were asked to submit bids on the management contract at KBV? That is what Lou reported - ie. that the contract was not put out for competitive bid. Do you have personal knowledge that bid packets were provided to other companies? If so, which ones?



Do you have copy of the agreement between Pahio and Wyndham that outlines this understanding?

And I thought the issue at hand was the intervals from defaulting owners. Your response seems to be about developer inventory that Wyndham acquired from Pahio. They are apples and oranges. One is a contract with Pahio, the other is a contract between the HOA and Wyndham.


You might ask yourself that same question, since you undermined him to help get Jack elected.

Regarding your first comments, you can get that information from long-time IOA board members such as Karen Blackford or Trish Harrington.

Regarding your last question, you need to read KYLOVE's last comment, in addition to the entire thread. KYLOVE is Karen Blackford, a long-time board member. You can also read Lou's previous rant. Eric, you seem to have a blind spot about this issue and why we created this movement, because you keep ask the same questions over and over again, and why we worked to get certain members on or off the board has been discussed over and over again, but you come back with the same questions. Karen Blackford has addressed many of the same issues. Even with evidence, you don't acknowledge it. So I can't help you.

 

[KYHOME]

This is Karen Blackford (KYHOME). I thought it would be good to start this post by clearly identifying myself - - to ensure no one can accuse me of not being transparent, doing a "whisper campaign" or some other accusation. We sure waste a lot of time and effort here when we could be using it for discussing solutions. It is interesting reading the back and forth comments posted between Eric, Jeff and Lou. I am sure there are others, but recently, that's what I have seen. There is so much finger-pointing posted here it's hard for any reader to find the truth about important issues that affect the continued success of KBV. This is a place to vent, share unpleasant and pleasant experiences, etc. That's great - we need that. But do we really need all the finger-pointing too? I see comments posted here about what happened in the past - some are right - but many only partially correct or totally wrong. They are often stated in accusatory language and/or stated as if they are facts. I believe that many of these posts are relaying the writer's opinion and/or something someone else told the writer. I know I am "preaching to the choir" when I tell you that what someone else tells you is not always factual, it often contains facts, but it can also contain a lot of other stuff that isn't true. If you don't know the facts on a subject, please use this forum or your other sources to ask questions before you blurt it out here - and if it is your opinion or you are relaying what someone told you, then say so, and tell us why you are thinking this way. It would be nice not have to read thru all the unnecessary stuff to attempt to find that valuable piece of information you have buried within your post. In my opinion, readers will respect you much more for it and likely be more eager to read your posts and take them seriously.

For the record, I don't have a problem telling you when I made a mistake. I know I do and I have said so here. I have also (more than once) posted facts to clear up something someone else posted. If I have the actual documents or other information to back up what I am saying, I tell you (If I somehow overlooked this - call me out on it!). I know there is likely something that I have said in this post that will not be interpreted the way I intended - - and that some of you won't chose to believe me when I provide an explanation. I accept that. Believe me, I know I screw up daily and I know that someone else might say some of this differently. I did a lot of editing before pushing that "post" button - but I am sure there are places I could of stated things better.

Just in case you are wondering - yes, I am a preacher's kid. So if you think this sounded like a sermon, it probably does. (you could say, "at least she came by it honestly" - - or is that a phrase we only use in Kentucky?) We all have different motivations that make us behave the way we do. It does not mean any of us are bad people.

 

[ecwinch]

There is so much finger-pointing posted here it's hard for any reader to find the truth about important issues that affect the continued success of KBV.

I see comments posted here about what happened in the past - some are right - but many only partially correct or totally wrong. They are often stated in accusatory language and/or stated as if they are facts. I believe that many of these posts are relaying the writer's opinion and/or something someone else told the writer.

Karen - on the point of sifting thru the "facts" vs "opinion/speculation", I agree with you 100%. My inquiries have been focused on finding the truth. But unfortunately most of the answers have fallen short.

Any insight you can provide on the agreement between Pahio and Wyndham, the agreement on Wyndham's ability to purchase intervals from defaulting owners, and/or the process that was used to select GPR would certainly be helpful to determine if the statements here are factual or not.

Toward that end, your participation in this thread has been very helpful. Thanks.

ps. Having gone back to your post outlining the timeline with GPR, I find the dates confusing - but perhaps I am missing something. I know that GPR was managing the resort when I stayed there in Feb 2017, and my memory is that the BoD communicated the change in mgt at some point in 2016. Your post mentions events in 2017 and 2018 - is that a typo? shouldnt all the dates be 2016?

 

[KYHOME]

Karen - on the point of sifting thru the "facts" vs "opinion/speculation", I agree with you 100%. My inquiries have been focused on finding the truth. But unfortunately most of the answers have fallen short.

Any insight you can provide on the agreement between Pahio and Wyndham, the agreement on Wyndham's ability to purchase intervals from defaulting owners, and/or the process that was used to select GPR would certainly be helpful to determine if the statements here are factual or not.

Toward that end, your participation in this thread has been very helpful. Thanks.

ps. Having gone back to your post outlining the timeline with GPR, I find the dates confusing - but perhaps I am missing something. I know that GPR was managing the resort when I stayed there in Feb 2017, and my memory is that the BoD communicated the change in mgt at some point in 2016. Your post mentions events in 2017 and 2018 - is that a typo? shouldnt all the dates be 2016?

I will check dates - could be a typo.

 

[KYHOME]

I will check dates - could be a typo.

Geez, I am going to blame that one on getting old! I apologize for incorrectly typing the year on several of these dates in my previous post! I am restating with the note with the corrected dates below (corrections to the year are in Blue bold text, added some additional text in bold/italics - see #4):

For the record, Here are the facts about the timing on signing the contract with Grand Pacific:
1) The final version of the contract was sent to BOD members via email on 2/18/16. The date on the agreement was blank.
2) BOD members received a separate email on 2/18/16 to notify them of the special meeting to vote on the contract. The meeting was scheduled to be held on 2/23/16.
3) The decision to execute the Grand Pacific contract was made during the special meeting on 2/23/16.
4) On 2/25/16 Board members received the signed copy of the contract from Trish Harrington. The date on the agreement was February 23, 2016, with an effective date of January 1st, 2017.

There is nothing in the facts that indicates that the Grand Pacific contract was signed before the board even voted....I have the documents to back up everything I have said here.​

 

[KYHOME]

Ok - what other companies were asked to submit bids on the management contract at KBV? That is what Lou reported - ie. that the contract was not put out for competitive bid. Do you have personal knowledge that bid packets were provided to other companies? If so, which ones?



Do you have copy of the agreement between Pahio and Wyndham that outlines this understanding?

And I thought the issue at hand was the intervals from defaulting owners. Your response seems to be about developer inventory that Wyndham acquired from Pahio. They are apples and oranges. One is a contract with Pahio, the other is a contract between the HOA and Wyndham.


You might ask yourself that same question, since you undermined him to help get Jack elected.

I am responding to the question I keep seeing here - what did the foreclosure contract between Pahio/KBV and WYN actually say about reselling inventory. First, I want to explain that I became a board member in late May, 2011. This happened later in 2011. (I am not telling you this for an excuse). Also, Lynn McCrory (original developer) who was extremely knowledgeable about timeshares was on our board AND the contract was reviewed by our legal counsel as well.

Here is the exact language from the contract:

6. Right to Resell. Nothing herein contained shall limit WVR’s right to further assign any Delinquent Inventory which has been assigned to WVR by the Association, or to resell such Delinquent Inventory to any bonafide purchaser, or otherwise utilize the Delinquent Inventory in any manner permitted under the Project governing documents or applicable law.​

I can tell you that Wyndham did tell us that the inventory would be resold. I don't have a document that states this - it was verbal. I can tell you I clearly understood that was their intent. The first few years, very few foreclosures were processed. Then the volume picked up dramatically and the BOD realized the inventory was not being resold. We asked Wyndham - their answer was that they could not resell anything until they obtained the proper registration with the state of Hawaii - - and the person in government who handled that was notoriously slow and they could not get the registration processed. This excuse was used by Wyndham right up until we pulled the contract.

It is true that we did not have a new foreclosure contract in place when we pulled the contract with WYN. This happened because contractually, we only had a window for a specific period of time or the contract would stay in effect another year. A delay meant that WYN would get ownership of another lot of several hundred units. We were in negotiations with another company, but it was not yet final. In our opinion, we could not afford to wait any longer - - being without a foreclosure contract for a short period of time was a better alternative than allowing WYN to gain hundreds more KBV units in the upcoming year.

In hindsight, I admit that we were naïve to believe WYN would do what they said and resell the foreclosed units - - the contract language does give them opportunities to do otherwise. But their delay tactics in responding to our questions on the subject was abhorrent - - and to this day, I believe their explanation (about the registration process with the state) was a stalling tactic. They are a huge company - - I can't accept that they could not work with the state to resolve this issue (if it was an issue). To my knowledge, they still have not resold a single KBV unit.

I am sure many of you will have lots to say about this - - but at least you can stop speculating on what happened. Now you know.

 

[ecwinch]

Thanks for that insight. I am not really speculating on what happened. The facts as I know them are:

Wyndham acquired from Pahio any and all of the rights they held at KBV in 2006. Presumably including unsold inventory.
Over a number of years they acquired inventory from the HOA that resulting from defaulting owners. During the recession, I am sure this was sizable.
They control that inventory thru Club Wyndham Plus in some fashion.
They also acquire inventory from KBV owners who have assigned their usage rights to Club Wyndham Plus.

 

[KYHOME]

Eric, Here's the 2006 newspaper post on WYN's purchase from Pahio, which included KBV. This happened before my time on the board, so I don't have any additional information:

KAUI, HI— Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc. has acquired Hawaii-based PAHIO Resorts, Inc. and PAHIO Vacation Ownership, Inc. Wyndham Vacation Ownership will assume property management, sales and marketing operations for Bali Hai Villas, Ka Eo Kai, Kaui Beach Villas, Shearwater and Makai Resorts, all located here. Additionally, Wyndham Vacation Ownership has entered into an exclusive relationship with developer David Walters to expand the Bali Hai Villas resort, adding more than 125 vacation ownership units. PAHIOs five resorts have approximately 20,000 owners and consist of more than 400 vacation ownership units. The acquisition will provide Wyhndam Vacation Ownership with an enhanced presence in the Hawaiian Islands.
​

WYN acquired most of their units via the separate the Foreclosure agreement - and yes, during the recession it was sizeable. I can't say exactly how they use the inventory they got through foreclosures (they owned 799 as of 12/31/14 (per the annual audit report), that number is over a thousand now. I have always speculated that they use it to stock the Club Wyndham Plus (CWP) program. I do know that during my tenure on the board the inventory they had was never for sale.

Here is how CWP worked during the time that I was on the board - what you have is partially correct:

CWP owners pay monthly dues to CWP. WYN then pays the annual maintenance fees to KBV IOA for the CWP owner. Owners retain the title to the KBV IOA interval. (CWP does not own these intervals but rather individual owners have given up their use rights to the CWP. CWP owners still vote in the BOD elections).

If a CWP owner defaults in their monthly payments to WYN for 90 days, WYN returns the interval to the KBV IOA. Since WYN has already paid the maintenance fees for the year, the IOA will not experience a loss unless the owner does not pay their maintenance fees for the upcoming year (due on 12/15). IF the owner does not pay the dues for the upcoming year - after 365 days the interval goes into foreclosure - - when we had the Foreclosure Agreement with WYN, Wyndham then foreclosed and became the owner of the interval. (This information is per a WVO Controller in a memo dated 5/18/15). In my opinion, this was another reason to discontinue the foreclosure agreement with WYN. By the way, it took quite a bit of prodding to get the information on how this worked from WYN (yet another reason I don't trust them).
​

I hope this information is helpful.

​

​

 

[ecwinch]

Karen - thanks for the insight. I have always found your posts to be very helpful.

As I have stated before, given the size of the Wyndham ownership at the resort (in addition to owners who have assigned their units for points), I fail to understand how an adversarial position towards Wyndham bodes well for the long-term success of KBV.

For I do observe that the SaveOVI movement resulted in a significant increase in dues for owners in the current fiscal year. Hopefully the same is not in store for KBV.

 

[Jeff From Salem]

Karen - thanks for the insight. I have always found your posts to be very helpful.

As I have stated before, given the size of the Wyndham ownership at the resort (in addition to owners who have assigned their units for points), I fail to understand how an adversarial position towards Wyndham bodes well for the long-term success of KBV.

For I do observe that the SaveOVI movement resulted in a significant increase in dues for owners in the current fiscal year. Hopefully the same is not in store for KBV.

1) Eric, do you fail to see any negative effect Wyndham's presence has had on Kauai Beach Villas?

2) And what do you make of the inter-Wyndham memo from October 2016 seeking to overthrow the current President of the AOAO and get a majority of that board in order to keep their management contract? Do you see anything underhanded, unethical, or immoral?

Jeff

 

[KYHOME]

I'd like to weigh in here too regarding your comment about Wyndham, having an adversarial position towards them and it's long term effect. I have explained in several previous posts (I won't repeat here) why WYN was not a good Manager for KBV. I believe KBV owners deserve better than what they got with WYN. Although they carry name recognition, their performance was not to the level I have seen with Grand Pacific. That's just the facts and this can be proved with financial comparisons as well as the "Smoking Gun." I just want them (WYN) to behave like most management and large block owners behave - - that is, they don't attempt to or use their size and power to gain control of a board - - and use that power to gain control of another board (See the Smoking Gun - WYN states in this document that they successfully took control of the KBV IOA Board - - and that they would use it to gain control of the KBV AOAO board - which they did. That is unethical behavior - and not what you would expect to see in your resort management company - A management company should be a partner in a resort's success - - not garner control of the resort, and use it to their benefit.). An adversarial relationship with WYN right now just means that we have a conflicting view and oppose their current position. I don't see any other type of relationship that would work to get control back to independent owners. When we do gain owner control, what we do will benefit WYN, just like it benefits all other owners. Therefore, I don't see a long term issue here - it's temporarily needed.

Regarding SaveOVI - their situation was not the same as KBV. Just because they have had a significant increase in dues does not imply that KBV will. If a resort does not ensure that sufficient reserves are being put aside for unavoidable updates and repairs, maintenance fees will increase. That's just how it works. When I was Treasurer, we were always watching our reserve funds and comparing them to our future plans for updates/repairs. We worked to avoid special assessments (I can't afford that - most people can't) and ensure that sufficient $ would be there for future resort updates/repairs. I am saying there is a plan for the future at KBV - and it is was being watched carefully. If KBV decided to go beyond the plan, and update more quickly, it could impact maintenance fees or cause the need for a special assessment. I can't speak to where we stand with reserves at KBV now, but I would be surprised if it were any different.

 

[DeniseM]

I fail to understand how an adversarial position towards Wyndham bodes well for the long-term success of KBV.

It seems to me that this adversarial situation was created by Wyndham. Based on their "take over" memo and other actions, if owners and independent board members just play nice with Wyndham, we are going to get steam rolled by the corporate machine.

Eric - I understand that Wyndham points owners may have reasons for wanting Wyndham back, but the majority of owners are not points owners, and their best interest was not being served when Wyndham was the management company.

 

[ecwinch]

Denise - my posts are not from a Wyndham points owners that wants Wyndham to get the management contract back.

It is simply that the $1.5 million in dues that Wyndham pays KBV is a sizable portion of the budget. And I have yet to hear anyone outline how this ends well.

 

[ecwinch]

See the Smoking Gun - WYN states in this document that they successfully took control of the KBV IOA Board - - and that they would use it to gain control of the KBV AOAO board - which they did. That is unethical behavior - and not what you would expect to see in your resort management company - A management company should be a partner in a resort's success - - not garner control of the resort, and use it to their benefit.). An adversarial relationship with WYN right now just means that we have a conflicting view and oppose their current position.

As always, I appreciate your insights.

While I would agree with your assessment as it applies to a management company, what your analysis omits is that Wyndham is also the single largest owner at KBV. So unlike a simple mgt company, they have considerable skin in the game.

And we can disagree on the ethics. There is nothing unethical in the single largest stakeholder asserting their control. KBV has significant problems, they need to be addressed. The resort is not up to Wyndham standards and that is frequently commented on by Wyndham members who stay there. And like most legacy resorts the drag of defaulting owners impedes the BoD's ability to address concerns. But I dont see how alienating the single largest stakeholder at the resort addresses any of the systemic issues.

 

[sjsharkie]

As always, I appreciate your insights.

While I would agree with your assessment as it applies to a management company, what your analysis omits is that Wyndham is also the single largest owner at KBV. So unlike a simple mgt company, they have considerable skin in the game.

And we can disagree on the ethics. There is nothing unethical in the single largest stakeholder asserting their control. KBV has significant problems, they need to be addressed. The resort is not up to Wyndham standards and that is frequently commented on by Wyndham members who stay there. And like most legacy resorts the drag of defaulting owners impedes the BoD's ability to address concerns. But I dont see how alienating the single largest stakeholder at the resort addresses any of the systemic issues.

You are right that there is nothing unethical about Wyndham asserting control, but as an owner, I have an issue with it. If this were a for profit corporation, any board member or executive would be expected to recuse themselves from voting on specific vendors (i.e. management company in this instance) where they have a material relationship (i.e. employee of said management company in this instance. While they may be independent in fact, they can never be independent in appearance, and this is problematic IMHO for owners as a whole.

So as an owner at KBV, I will always vote against board members that have a material relationship with Wyndham, Grand Pacific or any other timeshare management company. I'm not sure how the actions of Jeff, Karen, Jack or anyone else are alienating Wyndham and I am supportive of their efforts to get the owners to vote their proxies to have fair representation on the board.

-ryan

 

[Jeff From Salem]

As always, I appreciate your insights.

While I would agree with your assessment as it applies to a management company, what your analysis omits is that Wyndham is also the single largest owner at KBV. So unlike a simple mgt company, they have considerable skin in the game.

And we can disagree on the ethics. There is nothing unethical in the single largest stakeholder asserting their control. KBV has significant problems, they need to be addressed. The resort is not up to Wyndham standards and that is frequently commented on by Wyndham members who stay there. And like most legacy resorts the drag of defaulting owners impedes the BoD's ability to address concerns. But I dont see how alienating the single largest stakeholder at the resort addresses any of the systemic issues.

Eric, you have still yet to make a single comment regarding the Wyndham's Smoking Gun memo. Not ONE. You only seem to be defending the status quo. What are we supposed to think??

As Denise has stated, it is Wyndham who has created this, from poor previous management, to their bullying attempts at taking over the boards. It's like someone hitting you in the face, then the moment you hit back, they accuse you of being violent with them.

And it's not a matter of guessing - there is evidence regarding the latter. They have more of an interest of their own self-interests rather than what is best for all. Karen has outlined many examples of this. I haven't seen one post from you acknowledging these. You have defended Larry and Lou who have been very vocal in defending Wyndham. You completely ignore any evidence presented (and then often come back with accusations that we haven't presented any evidence.). I don't know you personally, but what conclusion are we supposed to arrive at with regard to your loyalty?

Wyndham's presence, to me, is insidious. If you had been at the annual meeting yourself, if you had any sense of fairness, you might have been very disturbed at how Linda and the person she hired to run it handled the meeting. There sure were a good number of owners there who felt that way.

Jeff

 

[ecwinch]

You are right that there is nothing unethical about Wyndham asserting control, but as an owner, I have an issue with it. If this were a for profit corporation, any board member or executive would be expected to recuse themselves from voting on specific vendors (i.e. management company in this instance) where they have a material relationship (i.e. employee of said management company in this instance.
-ryan

Ryan - As I understand it the Wyndham affiliated BoD members were not able to vote on the mgt contract in 2016 - they were forced to abstain under the provisions of Article XI - Section II of the Declaration. Perhaps Karen can offer some insight into the particulars.

Section 2. Conflicts of Interest. The Developer, as the Owner of all unsold Intervals, will have the ability to vote for the Board members who in turn vote for and appoint the officers of the Interval Association. Such Board members and officers may be officers, employees, or agents of the Developer (Developer's employee). In the event a matter comes before the Board or the officers of the Interval Association where a vote or decision needs to be made, the Developer's Employees shall have the right to vote on such matters even if a conflict of interest exist between the Developer, Developer Employees, and the matter being voted upon; provided that the conflict is first disclosed by the Developers Employee and provided further that if the votes are counted, the decision is fair and reasonable to the Interval Association. Any such conflict shall be noted in the minutes of the meeting or the corporate records of the Interval Association.

This provision of course is predicated on that fact that Wyndham assumed the rights of the Developer from Pahio.

 

[sjsharkie]

It would be good to obtain that info.

The Conflict of Interest clause you copied doesn't seem to preclude them from voting on management contracts or any matter. It only says that the decision must be fair -- appears like you could drive a truck through that loophole.

Thanks for posting the reference.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[ecwinch]

That is why I asked if Karen could share any insight on how the voting went regarding the mgt contract.