What is a "covert MVW-hired mercenary"?!?! I have to admit, that's not a term I've ever read on TUG before.
Someone in Marriott's pocket.
It shouldn't matter here what the Grand Residence Club-Tahoe owners have or don't have to help them communicate, because Timber Lodge is a completely separate resort from GRC-Tahoe with a completely separate BOD.Do the GRC, Lake Tahoe unit owners have a platform to communicate with one another, electronically? This move by MVW should be a matter of the highest level of attention to unit owners.
You might want to contact Robert M. Bone, Esquire, of the Timeshare Board Law Group LLP, (707) 525-8999, http://robertbonelaw.com/, https://timeshareboardlawgroup.com/
Attorney Bone was the president (or, a member, I don’t remember) of a Lake Tahoe timeshare HOA, Olympic Village Inn, when a developer was up to no good. He mobilized the owners, and they won the battle with the developer.
Attorney Bone may be helpful to the GRC, Lake Tahoe unit owners.
Stayin' Alive: High Drama at Two Lake Tahoe Resorts During Timeshare Election Season
Most people know that fall and football go together. But only a handful know that fall is also election season at timeshare resorts across the country, where very few people vote and, in all likelihood, even fewer care about the outcomes. All owners generally care about is #1 reservations and...www.redweek.com
Considering that many TUGgers (including me) are accused of being Developer "plants" and worse every time they see the Developer's side of any issue, I'd need to see actual proof of a board member being in Marriott's pocket before accepting it as fact at face value.
There is a difference between being a Marriott enthusiast and being a Marriott employee (as stated by OP).
Yes, but what kind of proof is there that the guy already on the board or the guy now running are Marriott employees?
OP tells us the candidate currently running is a Marriott employee (see post #1). OP is a major broker of points and units at this resort; you can do a search on TUG to verify this. I will therefore assume he knows much more than either of us about specific candidates.
The current Timber Lodge board president was also in the most recent GRC election. He was nominated to be on the ballot on behalf of the MVW land trust; he is not an owner; he is representing the interest of MVW = he is "in their pocket." There is no evidence he was a Timber Lodge owner and I suspect he was nominated and elected in the same fashion. He refuses to answer any questions regarding his interests. Though his previous bio professes to have served on multiple boards, he won't identify any of them. The current candidate for the upcoming Timber Lodge election openly states in his bio the he is an MVW employee.
Can you post the slate of nominees, here? I am particularly interested in reading the MVW’s employee’s bio, and understanding the scope of MVW’s reach.
See my posts. Our building is in the same position. Dan Craig has no business being on the board of the MVC Trust and certainly no business being on the board of our building or any other. He is paid a "stipend" by the MVC Trust, which is the alter ego of the Management Company. The employees that MVW has had on our board in the past include: Nathan Guikema, Jim Marks, Stacey Jackson-Rauso, Charles Baron, Rance Ryan, and Ron Essig, just to name a few. Current MVW-beholden board members on our board (690 Market Street) are Stacey Jackson-Rauso and Dan Craig. Ray Corbin and Jim Marks both resigned in the past few weeks as things continue to get uglier at 690 Market Street in San Francisco.
This is an excellent article. I did not read it in thorough detail, but I did not see it call out the biggest advantage to the developers of their plan to accumulate ownership in their alter ego trusts: Once they have sufficient ownership of any property via their alter ego trust, they can control the board of the property. The board of the property is charged with oversight of the managing agent, but when the board is comprised of employees of the managing agent, there is no oversight and it is open season for self-dealing. Such self-dealing is actionable, but once they control the board, all transparency is gone and owners can't even see the egregious self-dealing. Any questions by owners are ignored; BOD meeting minutes are opaque and slanted. Quite the business plan.I reread this RedWeek article, below, which although not attributed to Jeff Weir, sure reads like Jeff Weir’s exceptional writings. I am struck by the remarkable accuracy of this article, and the extent that the article reflects the devious, anti-timeshare owner, behaviors of certain developers, and the need for timeshare owners to be informed, engaged, and attentive/suspect of these (developer) behaviors.
Stayin' Alive: High Drama at Two Lake Tahoe Resorts During Timeshare Election Season
Most people know that fall and football go together. But only a handful know that fall is also election season at timeshare resorts across the country, where very few people vote and, in all likelihood, even fewer care about the outcomes. All owners generally care about is #1 reservations and...www.redweek.com
The sad thing is that they don't give the hired hands enough information to even know what they are doing. I will credit a few of them that I have spoken to for getting out of the way once they realized they were being used by MVW. Nothing worse than realizing that you were misled into the "useful idiot" category. I know because I was misled into that category by MVW myself. Execs at MVW who were all charm for years became impossible to get a hold of once I started asking the questions that expose the wrondoing.
The governing documents are key. Also, it appears that MVW in its role as the developer typically keeps at least one ownership interest so that it can run for the board as an owner. The salient issue is this: Regardless of how any director comes to any board of directors, each has a fiduciary duty to avoid self-dealing. This is virtually impossible for those who are employees of the managing agent. If you are both an owner and a vendor, the smart thing to do is recuse yourself from any decision involving both parties due to a conflict of interest; however, the decision to recuse is up to the director themself (barring any overriding specific provision in the governing documents).
How about the longstanding history of MVC, as evidence? Sue, you of all people claiming naivete is hard to digest. As if you do not know that MVC's long standing strategy for these resorts is to pack the board with MVC aligned people who are often MVC employees, to do their bidding. When they can't they threaten "brand quality" as a bludgeon.
