Sunset Harbor to vote on terminating Hyatt management contract

[chrisbellows]

No, not at all. Sorry if I implied that. My comment was directed at another poster without first hand knowledge and doesn't seem to be a HSH owner and probably wasn't on the call. If they only received 52.8% of ownership votes, how can someone make a claim later that they did get enough votes but it just didn't pass? I don't buy it.

I think they said 52.8% of the owners voted (that’s a quorum) but out of the 52.8% voting you would need 66% yes votes to terminate and they didn’t reach that threshold — but we don’t know the percentage of yes or no… at least they did not disclose the breakdown at the BOD meeting.

 

[JanT]

That's ok. Probably just my interpretation - my brain is freakin' brain is so foggy from Covid. Ugh!

There were enough votes for the quorum but there were not enough "Yes" votes for either item to pass. I don't know what the split was but am going to find out. The problem child on the BOD is just going to continue to try to stir up shit and my guess is hope that other BOD members resign because they're tired of the problem child's crap. I hope that doesn't happen because they need to keep control of the BOD. I'm not happy with how things went down but I put a lot of faith in Kal and his opinion is that this is the best BOD he has seen at SH. So, I'll trust that even though this role out was botched, they are good, strong members of the BOD. They'll need to be because this is going to be a fight with MWC and unfortunately, they're going to have to fight the problem child, too.

Yeah

No, not at all. Sorry if I implied that. My comment was directed at another poster without first hand knowledge and doesn't seem to be a HSH owner and probably wasn't on the call. If they only received 52.8% of ownership votes, how can someone make a claim later that they did get enough votes but it just didn't pass? I don't buy it.

 

[dioxide45]

I think they said 52.8% of the owners voted (that’s a quorum) but out of the 52.8% voting you would need 66% yes votes to terminate and they didn’t reach that threshold — but we don’t know the percentage of yes or no… at least they did not disclose the breakdown at the BOD meeting.

That's ok. Probably just my interpretation - my brain is freakin' brain is so foggy from Covid. Ugh!

There were enough votes for the quorum but there were not enough "Yes" votes for either item to pass. I don't know what the split was but am going to find out. The problem child on the BOD is just going to continue to try to stir up shit and my guess is hope that other BOD members resign because they're tired of the problem child's crap. I hope that doesn't happen because they need to keep control of the BOD. I'm not happy with how things went down but I put a lot of faith in Kal and his opinion is that this is the best BOD he has seen at SH. So, I'll trust that even though this role out was botched, they are good, strong members of the BOD. They'll need to be because this is going to be a fight with MWC and unfortunately, they're going to have to fight the problem child, too.

Yeah

Thanks for clarifying, I completely misunderstood...

 

[AJCts411]

As a potential buyer of a. Week at Sunset Harbor I would like to know how much this effort cost the current ownership. I am sure that the current owners would also like to know. Just the legal fees alone I am sure are substantial.
Also, now this heavily damaged BOD will have to start the 2023 budget process as it is my understanding that a budget meeting is scheduled in just about a month. Something tells me that the timing of this exit vote was the start of a very big surprise for the owners!

Better question, how much would the potential settlement with Marriott be if the BOD did not seek legal advice?

 

[AJCts411]

Some of the realization of how little no votes it would of took to fail the motions. We do not have the true numbers yet. It will come out. But certainly one can see the up hill battle in passing with a 66% yes.

weeks (1 vote per week) as BOD reported	2040​
Electronic votes	1195​
Paper votes	42​
Total week votes	1237​
Owners who voted ..... Marriott = 1 owner	785​
Owners paper votes	42​
Total owner votes	826​
Quorum reached	52.80%​
Votes cast = there is a discrepancy, used BOD number.	1077​
For yes to pass =	66%​
Votes =	711​
For NO to succeed votes =	377​
Marriott-portfolio votes =	156​
Developer votes = Estimated BOD disclosed this in minutes.	12​
NO votes by Marriott/Developer	168​
Of votes cast =	16%​
OWNER NO to fail-min.	221​
Of votes cast	21%​

Out of the votes cast, excluding Marriott votes only 221 votes are need to fail the motion. 52.8% owner participation in this vote IMO is very low, for the topic of this votes. I think it would be fair to say those who did not vote, either had no opinion, didn't care or were fence sitters. And before the analysis begins, these are approximate numbers to give some perspective to the challenge.

 

[BAT]

Some of the realization of how little no votes it would of took to fail the motions. We do not have the true numbers yet. It will come out. But certainly one can see the up hill battle in passing with a 66% yes.

weeks (1 vote per week) as BOD reported	2040​
Electronic votes	1195​
Paper votes	42​
Total week votes	1237​
Owners who voted ..... Marriott = 1 owner	785​
Owners paper votes	42​
Total owner votes	826​
Quorum reached	52.80%​
Votes cast = there is a discrepancy, used BOD number.	1077​
For yes to pass =	66%​
Votes =	711​
For NO to succeed votes =	377​
Marriott-portfolio votes =	156​
Developer votes = Estimated BOD disclosed this in minutes.	12​
NO votes by Marriott/Developer	168​
Of votes cast =	16%​
OWNER NO to fail-min.	221​
Of votes cast	21%​

Out of the votes cast, excluding Marriott votes only 221 votes are need to fail the motion. 52.8% owner participation in this vote IMO is very low, for the topic of this votes. I think it would be fair to say those who did not vote, either had no opinion, didn't care or were fence sitters. And before the analysis begins, these are approximate numbers to give some perspective to the challenge.

What’s your point! That was all known before the Sunset Harbor board even started this effort. The bar is very high and the way this thing was rolled out, and with one board member torpedoing the effort it never had a chance.
The Sunset Harbor board knows the yes/no tally and the $$$ question is why didn’t they release it? But, then again, you know why the didn’t. The board should release the yes/no count and the total cost of this effort!

 

[AJCts411]

What’s your point! That was all known before the Sunset Harbor board even started this effort. The bar is very high and the way this thing was rolled out, and with one board member torpedoing the effort it never had a chance.
The Sunset Harbor board knows the yes/no tally and the $$$ question is why didn’t they release it? But, then again, you know why the didn’t. The board should release the yes/no count and the total cost of this effort!

I know what? More conspiracy from the non owner. Know is the BOD will be releasing minutes with numbers...how detailed don't know neither would a non owner know. Sorry that disclosing the ease at which Marriot can scuttle a vote with low turn out participation pains you the non owner.

 

[sjsharkie]

Out of the votes cast, excluding Marriott votes only 221 votes are need to fail the motion. 52.8% owner participation in this vote IMO is very low, for the topic of this votes. I think it would be fair to say those who did not vote, either had no opinion, didn't care or were fence sitters. And before the analysis begins, these are approximate numbers to give some perspective to the challenge.

IMHO, most don't care. Again, we are not talking about Aspen where fractional and bundled ownerships are a good chunk of the owners. We are likely looking at single EY and EOY week owners who throw away the proxy when they receive it. Those of us who participate in a timeshare forum are likely the minority of ownership...

This is why we see a good number of brand name timeshare boards that are filled with employees of those entities and why it is almost impossible to vote them out.

 

[SueDonJ]

... I think it would be fair to say those who did not vote, either had no opinion, didn't care or were fence sitters. ...

There were a couple owners in this thread who said they didn't even get a ballot, right? Considering that TUGgers represent only a very small number of owners already, I'd also question how many owners overall actually had no idea that this effort was underway.

 

[BAT]

I know what? More conspiracy from the non owner. Know is the BOD will be releasing minutes with numbers...how detailed don't know neither would a non owner know. Sorry that disclosing the ease at which Marriot can scuttle a vote with low turn out participation pains you the non owner.

Do you know what a rhetorical statement is? Of course you don’t know what the vote was. But I will make you a wager that the no votes far exceeded the yes votes. What do you want to wager?

 

[magmue]

What’s your point! That was all known before the Sunset Harbor board even started this effort. The bar is very high....

I don't have a dog in this fight, but have been reading along with interest. I am an owner at Kauai Beach Villas, where a BOD with an owner majority didn't renew Wyndham's management contract (consensus among owners was that KBV was being neglected to Wyndham's longterm benefit) and awarded it to Grand Pacific for 3 years. The owners were very pleased with progress under GPR, but when the contract came due for renewal, Wyndham staged a hostile takeover of the board (using last minute legal shenanigans at the annual meeting) and installed a majority Wyndhham aligned aligned BOD. Lo and behold, the management contract went back to Wyndham.

.... the way this thing was rolled out, and with one board member torpedoing the effort it never had a chance.

You forgot to add the intense lobbying efforts of non-owners here on TUG and elsewhere as a significant thumb on the scale. Non-owners who want to keep trading into Sunset Harbor and are therefore aligned with the interests of Marriott/Hyatt as opposed to the best interests of Sunset Harbor owners.

 

[AJCts411]

. But I will make you a wager that the no votes far exceeded the yes votes. What do you want to wager?

The number of votes is not why the post. It is about how few it can take to sway the vote to Marriot. And the importance that a huge majority of owners should, and do actually vote to dilute Marriots influence. That did not happen

I don't agree that there so many owners had no clue as to what was going on. Never received a email nor where contacted by mail. 42 mail in votes supports this. But I do agree only a small percent are here on tug.

 

[Bunk]

Was Marriott allowed to vote in this decision?

I'm reading the Florida time-share statute. I don't think that the developer, i.e., Marriott, has the right to vote in the decision as to whether to terminate the relationship with the managing agent.

If I am reading this correctly, it would mean that in Florida, the purchase of units pursuant to its exercise of the right of refusa should not preclude the remaining purchasers from booting out the managing agent.

Here is what the Florida statute says about terminating the managing agent (my emphasis added):

CHAPTER 721 VACATION AND TIMESHARE PLANS PART I VACATION PLANS AND TIMESHARING (ss. 721.01-721.32)

721.14 Discharge of managing entity.—
(1) If timeshare estates are being sold to purchasers of a timeshare plan, any contract between the owners’ association and a manager or management firm shall be automatically renewable every 3 years, beginning with the third year after the owners’ association is first created, unless the purchasers vote to discharge the manager or management firm. Such a vote shall be conducted by the board of administration of the owners’ association. The manager or management firm shall be deemed discharged if at least 66 percent of the purchasers voting, which shall be at least 50 percent of all votes allocated to purchasers, vote to discharge.

The definition of Purchaser excludes the developer

721.05
(30) “Purchaser” means any person, other than a developer, who by means of a voluntary transfer acquires a legal or equitable interest in a timeshare plan other than as security for an obligation.

 

[sjsharkie]

Was Marriott allowed to vote in this decision?

I'm reading the Florida time-share statute. I don't think that the developer, i.e., Marriott, has the right to vote in the decision as to whether to terminate the relationship with the managing agent.

If I am reading this correctly, it would mean that in Florida, the purchase of units pursuant to its exercise of the right of refusa should not preclude the remaining purchasers from booting out the managing agent.

IMHO, I don't think the DC trust or any other entity Marriott uses to hold reclaimed intervals is considered the developer either.

 

[echino]

IMHO, I don't think the DC trust or any other entity Marriott uses to hold reclaimed intervals is considered the developer either.

Not considered "developer" for voting.

But considered "developer" for ROFR.

 

[SueDonJ]

Was Marriott allowed to vote in this decision? ...

Good question. For what's it worth, in the BOD-member-led revolt at a Marriott resort that I've mentioned in this thread, Marriott did not vote certain issues. If I'm remembering correctly at the time some people took that as an indication that Marriott believed it was in the wrong and was worried about losing any legal challenges, until it was pointed out that Marriott's entitlement to vote its shares for certain issues was governed by local laws and/or stipulated in the the Timesharing Plan and Management Agreement docs. Ultimately that effort failed because Marriott fought every step of the way to the extent it could, and the resort remains as an MVC-branded resort.

 

[RM@SH]

Marilyn's character and conduct are superior. She emails only those who personally have asked her to. We will know the tally tomorrow, and hope for the best.

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!! She has become the focus on all the slinging here only because she keeps an open mind about issues and takes the time to sort out the good and the bad. She is the only board member to communicate with owners and as you stated, only emails those who have requested to be on her list. Her email list is from well before she became a board member. She started the list to only help owners communicate their requests to buy, sell or rent. If the board in general would communicate like Marilyn does, this vote may have been different.

 

[JanT]

And you are absolutely wrong about this. What you've said here is not true.

She is the only board member to communicate with owners

 

[alameda94501]

The original developer SUNSET HARBOR DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP only needs to maintain one unit week so that they can continue to exercise ROFR even if a Yes vote goes through.

They sold all the remaining (voting) unit weeks to a different entity, HPC DEVELOPER LLC. Even though it says "developer" in the name, it seems like HPC DEVELOPER LLC where all the unit weeks for Portfolio lie should be considered a "purchaser" since they purchased the unit weeks (last for $207,776 for 28 unit weeks, see attached).

Was Marriott allowed to vote in this decision?

I'm reading the Florida time-share statute. I don't think that the developer, i.e., Marriott, has the right to vote in the decision as to whether to terminate the relationship with the managing agent.

If I am reading this correctly, it would mean that in Florida, the purchase of units pursuant to its exercise of the right of refusa should not preclude the remaining purchasers from booting out the managing agent.

Here is what the Florida statute says about terminating the managing agent (my emphasis added):

CHAPTER 721 VACATION AND TIMESHARE PLANS PART I VACATION PLANS AND TIMESHARING (ss. 721.01-721.32)

721.14 Discharge of managing entity.—
(1) If timeshare estates are being sold to purchasers of a timeshare plan, any contract between the owners’ association and a manager or management firm shall be automatically renewable every 3 years, beginning with the third year after the owners’ association is first created, unless the purchasers vote to discharge the manager or management firm. Such a vote shall be conducted by the board of administration of the owners’ association. The manager or management firm shall be deemed discharged if at least 66 percent of the purchasers voting, which shall be at least 50 percent of all votes allocated to purchasers, vote to discharge.

The definition of Purchaser excludes the developer

721.05
(30) “Purchaser” means any person, other than a developer, who by means of a voluntary transfer acquires a legal or equitable interest in a timeshare plan other than as security for an obligation.

 

[JanT]

There are two different lists. Apparently one that she compiled to help owners or others looking to buy, sell, or rent and which it sounds like she utilized to try and sway the vote to "No." She doesn't get that luxury. She voted "Yes" as a member of the BOD to present the vote to owners and even if she changed her mind afterwards, as a member of the BOD she is obligated to either visibly support what the majority vote was or she has to remain silent. She CANNOT work behind the scenes to torpedo the BOD. I'm not sure why she changed her mind because it is known that in the past she wanted Hyatt out more than anyone.

There is another full owner list that she would have acquired as a BOD member and encompasses sensitive, private information (that is protected by the Privacy Act). She sent out that list of 2,000 owners and all their information to a significant amount of people in the past. HUGE issue there and has set the BOD up for a lawsuit.

Her email list is from well before she became a board member. She started the list to only help owners communicate their requests to buy, sell or rent.

 

[SUN-N-Fun]

There are two different lists. Apparently one that she compiled to help owners or others looking to buy, sell, or rent and which it sounds like she utilized to try and sway the vote to "No." She doesn't get that luxury. She voted "Yes" as a member of the BOD to present the vote to owners and even if she changed her mind afterwards, as a member of the BOD she is obligated to either visibly support what the majority vote was or she has to remain silent. She CANNOT work behind the scenes to torpedo the BOD. I'm not sure why she changed her mind because it is known that in the past she wanted Hyatt out more than anyone.

There is another full owner list that she would have acquired as a BOD member and encompasses sensitive, private information (that is protected by the Privacy Act). She sent out that list of 2,000 owners and all their information to a significant amount of people in the past. HUGE issue there and has set the BOD up for a lawsuit.

Why is owner information protected by the privacy ACT? It appears FL 721 records requirement requires the BOD to supply a detailed member list (as well as a ton of other stuff) within 10 days upon request.

Im new to Tug and I’m new to Sunset Harbor what am I missing? What member info is protected by the privacy act? FL has a very open public record laws for real estate and HOA memberships.

 

[SteveinHNL]

There are two different lists. Apparently one that she compiled to help owners or others looking to buy, sell, or rent and which it sounds like she utilized to try and sway the vote to "No." She doesn't get that luxury. She voted "Yes" as a member of the BOD to present the vote to owners and even if she changed her mind afterwards, as a member of the BOD she is obligated to either visibly support what the majority vote was or she has to remain silent. She CANNOT work behind the scenes to torpedo the BOD. I'm not sure why she changed her mind because it is known that in the past she wanted Hyatt out more than anyone.

There is another full owner list that she would have acquired as a BOD member and encompasses sensitive, private information (that is protected by the Privacy Act). She sent out that list of 2,000 owners and all their information to a significant amount of people in the past. HUGE issue there and has set the BOD up for a lawsuit.

It could also be viewed that a director who votes in support of presenting the proposals for an owners’ vote does not have to be in favor of the actual proposals, and so it would not seem inappropriate to vote “yes, the owners should decide the issue,” and subsequently present her position as to why the owners should exercise their votes to vote down the proposals.

 

[RM@SH]

And you are absolutely wrong about this. What you've said here is not true.

I reached out to other board members for information and received no responses. There was a campaigning email sent by a board member with no information other than how bad Hyatt is. Marilyn is getting a bad wrap just because she wanted more information and the board members that died Hyatt are golden. I will say again, with more information and better communication with the owners including taking the time to be sure they had accurate contact info, both questions may have passed with yes votes.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

 

[RM@SH]

There are two different lists. Apparently one that she compiled to help owners or others looking to buy, sell, or rent and which it sounds like she utilized to try and sway the vote to "No." She doesn't get that luxury. She voted "Yes" as a member of the BOD to present the vote to owners and even if she changed her mind afterwards, as a member of the BOD she is obligated to either visibly support what the majority vote was or she has to remain silent. She CANNOT work behind the scenes to torpedo the BOD. I'm not sure why she changed her mind because it is known that in the past she wanted Hyatt out more than anyone.

There is another full owner list that she would have acquired as a BOD member and encompasses sensitive, private information (that is protected by the Privacy Act). She sent out that list of 2,000 owners and all their information to a significant amount of people in the past. HUGE issue there and has set the BOD up for a lawsuit.

I get all her emails. Please provide a copy of any email that is how you describe it. I do not believe it exists.
One email I did see that only went to those subscribed to her list was not to sway anyone. She was just hoping for more information on the Hyatt alternatives.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

 

[jabberwocky]

It could also be viewed that a director who votes in support of presenting the proposals for an owners’ vote does not have to be in favor of the actual proposals, and so it would not seem inappropriate to vote “yes, the owners should decide the issue,” and subsequently present her position as to why the owners should exercise their votes to vote down the proposals.

Then this person should not be on the board. If a decision has been made everyone on the board should abide by it and not work to undermine that decision (you don’t necessarily have to actively support it). There are certain responsibilities you have as a board member and this member has clearly failed.