Timber Lodge BOD election - MVW trying to stack board with employees

[TimGolobic]

...t the play book is to put all the MVC Trust votes behind the MVW employee and hope that the bulk of the legacy owners are too apathetic to vote.

No need for "hope" it's a pretty safe bet. That's part of the reason for starting this thread. I understand it won't have the needed reach to the vast majority of owners, but at least exposing it to some daylight.

 

[SueDonJ]

It is interesting when I run through the properties where they are encountering pushback from the legacy owners - they are the higher end properties where the initial buy in and MF are not average by any means. That is perhaps what is so offensive about having this guy come in as if he earned his way into the room. Imagine somebody comes into your house as if they own it with an arrogance and on a power trip when they have nothing at stake and have no idea what they are talking about and are not of the same caliber professionally or financially as those who have not only their own money on the line, but more importantly, control over their home. The properties where legacy owners are pushing back are properties that were never intended to be timeshares per their governing documents.

I disagree with the underlying notion you have (as I understand you and please correct me if I'm wrong) that what drives pushback from legacy owners throughout the MVW portfolio happens only at the certain properties that had initial above-average buy-ins and MF's, and that it only happens at "properties that were never intended to be timeshares ..." Over the duration of my TUG membership we've parsed multiple occurrences of owner-driven challenges at various resorts to Marriott's management/budgeting, and the only thing they all had in common IMO was that BOD members were careless, not in compliance with the governing docs, and in a few notable cases, deliberately malfeasant in order to push Marriott to exercise a separation. Of all those at which an eventual separation from Marriott (whether owner-driven or Marriott-driven) didn't happen, it eventually came out that mismanagement of the budget and brand standard and violations of various rules/laws by the BOD was in play. In several instances, the most egregious, we watched as Marriott contributed over and above their legal $ considerations to the resolution, because they recognized as easily as some of us on TUG did that the owners were harmed by wayward BOD's.

As for the make-up of BOD's, you and I will probably disagree about that forever. I don't believe that the only people qualified to hold seats are those who are of a certain, "caliber professionally or financially." It's okay by me if an Average Joe runs for a seat at my resorts as long as s/he can articulate his/her reasonable expectations of ownership to the other board members and the ownership at large. And I also believe that Marriott has a place on resort BOD's. Whether that's an entitlement stipulated by the governing docs or an electable position/process to which every other owner is entitled, they are owners with interests to protect. The fact that Marriott is not *only* an owner but also the developer (in most cases) and the Manager (in all cases) of course means that there is more opportunity for Marriott to give itself advantages that other owners don't have. But the fact that the opportunity is there doesn't automatically mean that the additional advantage will be taken. I simply have never understood that expectation, considering that Marriott stands to lose much, much more than any individual owners if they blatantly mismanage the properties. Similar to what @Dean always says, if that's your expectation of Marriott then it's probably best to change your ownership status.

 

[rcdcowner557]

I disagree with the underlying notion you have (as I understand you and please correct me if I'm wrong) that what drives pushback from legacy owners throughout the MVW portfolio happens only at the certain properties that had initial above-average buy-ins and MF's, and that it only happens at "properties that were never intended to be timeshares ..." Over the duration of my TUG membership we've parsed multiple occurrences of owner-driven challenges at various resorts to Marriott's management/budgeting, and the only thing they all had in common IMO was that BOD members were careless, not in compliance with the governing docs, and in a few notable cases, deliberately malfeasant in order to push Marriott to exercise a separation. Of all those at which an eventual separation from Marriott (whether owner-driven or Marriott-driven) didn't happen, it eventually came out that mismanagement of the budget and brand standard and violations of various rules/laws by the BOD was in play. In several instances, the most egregious, we watched as Marriott contributed over and above their legal $ considerations to the resolution, because they recognized as easily as some of us on TUG did that the owners were harmed by wayward BOD's.

As for the make-up of BOD's, you and I will probably disagree about that forever. I don't believe that the only people qualified to hold seats are those who are of a certain, "caliber professionally or financially." It's okay by me if an Average Joe runs for a seat at my resorts as long as s/he can articulate his/her reasonable expectations of ownership to the other board members and the ownership at large. And I also believe that Marriott has a place on resort BOD's. Whether that's an entitlement stipulated by the governing docs or an electable position/process to which every other owner is entitled, they are owners with interests to protect. The fact that Marriott is not *only* an owner but also the developer (in most cases) and the Manager (in all cases) of course means that there is more opportunity for Marriott to give itself advantages that other owners don't have. But the fact that the opportunity is there doesn't automatically mean that the additional advantage will be taken. I simply have never understood that expectation, considering that Marriott stands to lose much, much more than any individual owners if they blatantly mismanage the properties. Similar to what @Dean always says, if that's your expectation of Marriott then it's probably best to change your ownership status.

Regarding ownership status, I assure you that will happen one way or the other in the very near future. With respect to the rest of your post, I am quite certain you do not have first hand knowledge of the issues on which you have such strong opinions. I am talking about those instances where you claim to have "parsed multiple occurrences of owner-driven challenges at various resorts to Marriott's management/budgeting, and the only thing they all had in common IMO was that BOD members were careless, not in compliance with the governing docs, and in a few notable cases, deliberately malfeasant in order to push Marriott to exercise a separation. Of all those at which an eventual separation from Marriott (whether owner-driven or Marriott-driven) didn't happen, it eventually came out that mismanagement of the budget and brand standard and violations of various rules/laws by the BOD was in play. In several instances, the most egregious, we watched as Marriott contributed over and above their legal $ considerations to the resolution, because they recognized as easily as some of us on TUG did that the owners were harmed by wayward BOD's."

Carry on, and I wish you a good day.

 

[SueDonJ]

Regarding ownership status, I assure you that will happen one way or the other in the very near future. With respect to the rest of your post, I am quite certain you do not have first hand knowledge of the issues on which you have such strong opinions. I am talking about those instances where you claim to have "parsed multiple occurrences of owner-driven challenges at various resorts to Marriott's management/budgeting, and the only thing they all had in common IMO was that BOD members were careless, not in compliance with the governing docs, and in a few notable cases, deliberately malfeasant in order to push Marriott to exercise a separation. Of all those at which an eventual separation from Marriott (whether owner-driven or Marriott-driven) didn't happen, it eventually came out that mismanagement of the budget and brand standard and violations of various rules/laws by the BOD was in play. In several instances, the most egregious, we watched as Marriott contributed over and above their legal $ considerations to the resolution, because they recognized as easily as some of us on TUG did that the owners were harmed by wayward BOD's."

Carry on, and I wish you a good day.

Does it always work for you to accuse anyone who disagrees with you that the reason their opinion differs from yours can’t possibly be anything except you are the expert and they are completely ignorant?

Yeah, that’s the way to make friends and influence people. It works every time!

 

[rcdcowner557]

Does it always work for you to accuse anyone who disagrees with you that the reason their opinion differs from yours can’t possibly be anything except you are the expert and they are completely ignorant?

Yeah, that’s the way to make friends and influence people. It works every time!

I neither said that I was expert nor that you were ignorant. I also can't find where I disagreed with you. I merely said that I was fairly certain that you do not have first hand knowledge of those situations that you "parsed" on here. Was I wrong? If I was wrong, I would be very much interested in hearing your personal experience.

Seriously, I thought about putting a post script on my last entry asking you to direct me to the threads where you all parsed the situations you described because I am very much interested in reading about them. Further to that point, I would also very much value any first hand knowledge you can bring to the table. Opinions based on hearsay are fascinating from a sociological perspective, but are not useful to me. If I was wrong and you were a principal in any of the situations to which you alluded, I would appreciate your sharing more. Either way, the request that you direct me to the threads you alluded to stands.

Many thanks.

 

[Dean]

Back to the topic of Timber Lodge, the fact they are running an MVW employee for an elected seat against legacy owners is a red flag. Legacy owners at Timber Lodge must be on to them. I don't know what the ownership composition is at Timber Lodge, but the play book is to put all the MVC Trust votes behind the MVW employee and hope that the bulk of the legacy owners are too apathetic to vote. The Trust can take over the board at such properties where it has a sizeable but not dominant ownership interest fairly easily due to owner apathy along the lines that wuv pooh describes.

IMO every owner has the right to run for BOD. ASAMOF I think it is to the resorts advantage to have representation from MVC on the BOD. I also disagree with the idea that a "legacy owner", whatever that really is, is more entitled or more qualified to represent the best interest of the resort as a whole which is what the BOD is entrusted to do. The trust has an interest in the quality of the resort and controlling costs when possible. IMO the bottom line is that one is either in or out with MVC, they will not be a silent partner and they should not be. If one things a given individual is unqualified then stand up and say so in a way that's potentially constructive.

 

[danill]

I neither said that I was expert nor that you were ignorant. I also can't find where I disagreed with you. I merely said that I was fairly certain that you do not have first hand knowledge of those situations that you "parsed" on here. Was I wrong? If I was wrong, I would be very much interested in hearing your personal experience.

Seriously, I thought about putting a post script on my last entry asking you to direct me to the threads where you all parsed the situations you described because I am very much interested in reading about them. Further to that point, I would also very much value any first hand knowledge you can bring to the table. Opinions based on hearsay are fascinating from a sociological perspective, but are not useful to me. If I was wrong and you were a principal in any of the situations to which you alluded, I would appreciate your sharing more. Either way, the request that you direct me to the threads you alluded to stands.

Many thanks.

What an obnoxious post. As a long time peruser of TUG, I have read of several detailed situations to support SueDonJ's assertions. And find it incredible that she is expected to submit detailed documentation in support of her statement simply because you disagree without any substance or effort of your own. As a start, you can go read the many, many, many posts regarding GRC to learn more.

We are at Chairman level with a combination of Weeks and Points, and I actually find it desirable to have a representative of MVW/MVC on the BOD of these properties in proportion to the Points ownership. The value of my Points ownership is directly dependent on the quality of the portfolio properties, and I do want them maintained to standards I bought into. Obviously, I can only vote for Boards at those resorts where I have direct deeded ownership. So, I am fine with MVW using the collective Points ownership of myself and others to represent our interests and advocate if necessary to offset the potential of short-sighted "arses" diminishing the quality of properties I would like to visit using my Points ownership.

 

[rcdcowner557]

Good Lord. Please do go on and continue illustrating my points. This is fascinating.

 

[SueDonJ]

I neither said that I was expert nor that you were ignorant. I also can't find where I disagreed with you. I merely said that I was fairly certain that you do not have first hand knowledge of those situations that you "parsed" on here. Was I wrong? If I was wrong, I would be very much interested in hearing your personal experience.

Seriously, I thought about putting a post script on my last entry asking you to direct me to the threads where you all parsed the situations you described because I am very much interested in reading about them. Further to that point, I would also very much value any first hand knowledge you can bring to the table. Opinions based on hearsay are fascinating from a sociological perspective, but are not useful to me. If I was wrong and you were a principal in any of the situations to which you alluded, I would appreciate your sharing more. Either way, the request that you direct me to the threads you alluded to stands.

Many thanks.

I'm not a secretary here on TUG, but because I'm helpful I will tell you that the "Search" button can be found on any page in the upper right corner. Some people choose instead to use search engines to refine their search terms; maybe one of them will help you with that.

At its core your comment is a reiteration of something that's been parsed to death on TUG, i.e. the notion that only Weeks Owners (or in the case of the fractional resorts, Fractional Owners) can have valid opinions about issues/challenges raised at any specific resort. We're no strangers to the old, "Are You An Owner?" trope. For some, that's a perfectly fine qualifier for participation; for others it's not because so many issues that affect one resort will have a bearing on all the others. And then there are people like me who are simply fascinated by the legalities involved and like to dive in headfirst in order to learn something that might help them in their ownership, or share something that might help others with theirs. I just wish that when threads about issues/challenges are started, it's stated up front in the first post whether all readers are invited to share their opinions or if some will be discounted out of hand regardless of a participant's knowledge or expertise. It would make TUG life so much easier, considering that TUG is a public bulletin board system that encourages all readers to decide for themselves whether or not to actively participate. None of us here want to waste time.

 

[rcdcowner557]

I'm not a secretary here on TUG, but because I'm helpful I will tell you that the "Search" button can be found on any page in the upper right corner. Some people choose instead to use search engines to refine their search terms; maybe one of them will help you with that.

At its core your comment is a reiteration of something that's been parsed to death on TUG, i.e. the notion that only Weeks Owners (or in the case of the fractional resorts, Fractional Owners) can have valid opinions about issues/challenges raised at any specific resort. We're no strangers to the old, "Are You An Owner?" trope. For some, that's a perfectly fine qualifier for participation; for others it's not because so many issues that affect one resort will have a bearing on all the others. And then there are people like me who are simply fascinated by the legalities involved and like to dive in headfirst in order to learn something that might help them in their ownership, or share something that might help others with theirs. I just wish that when threads about issues/challenges are started, it's stated up front in the first post whether all readers are invited to share their opinions or if some will be discounted out of hand regardless of a participant's knowledge or expertise. It would make TUG life so much easier, considering that TUG is a public bulletin board system that encourages all readers to decide whether or not to actively participate. None of us here want to waste time.

No - the core of my comment is that only those with first hand knowledge are competent to state what they have personally witnessed or done. All the "parsing" based on hearsay among the sewing circle is just noise, though it is interesting noise.

FWIW, on the GRC issues, I've read the court filings and have spoken with principals on both sides of that dispute. I seriously doubt many who have voiced strong opinions on here have done the same, including a few GRC owners who chimed in. I remain interested in hearing first hand knowledge from anyone who cares to share.

And thank you for the "search" suggestion, but I cannot think of terms to input. Again, I am quite familiar with the GRC specifics and remain interested in learning about other properties where owners have pushed back. It seemed to me from the emotion behind your post that there have been many where you have concluded that the board pushing back was at fault. If you could direct me to any of those (other than GRC, which I have examined in great detail and on which I reached a different conclusion), I would appreciate it. If you don't know any off the top of your head, I reiterate my appreciation for the information you have already provided. I do not doubt that you are trying to be helpful and care about both educating timeshare users and the integrity of this forum.

 

[rcdcowner557]

IMO every owner has the right to run for BOD. ASAMOF I think it is to the resorts advantage to have representation from MVC on the BOD. I also disagree with the idea that a "legacy owner", whatever that really is, is more entitled or more qualified to represent the best interest of the resort as a whole which is what the BOD is entrusted to do. The trust has an interest in the quality of the resort and controlling costs when possible. IMO the bottom line is that one is either in or out with MVC, they will not be a silent partner and they should not be. If one things a given individual is unqualified then stand up and say so in a way that's potentially constructive.

Nobody is arguing against MVW's right to run for board seats where either the developer or the Trust has an ownership interest. Also nobody is arguing against your right to vote for such candidate. I believe OP was providing information that I personally would find helpful were I eligible to vote at the property at issue. I also found it helpful because it provides another data point of a pattern and practice that is in the process of being challenged through appropriate channels. I do believe there are likely properties where MVW's board participation is productive. I also know based on conduct that I have personally witnessed that there are instances where they have used their board positions to self-deal.

 

[tahoe]

Honestly, I can’t stop laughing about King’s claims of accomplishments.

One can only hope that the Timber Lodge owners are engaged and smart enough to vote in a manner that is in the best interests of the resort.

My BS detector broke while reading his blurb.

 

[tahoe]

I agree with the sentiment that MVC employees on the BOD have dual interests:

a) maintain resort quality so that MVC can continue to market them as a high-ish end product.
b) ensure MF rises at a target % so that MVC increases profit via management fee.

I may not like b) very much, but sort of understood that it came with buying into Marriott.

 

[WBP]

My BS detector broke while reading his blurb.

Thank you for your intuition, and humor.

One question that has not been answered, is, what is the basis for Jason King’s candidacy to sit on the Timber Lodge HOA Board, e.g. is it that as Jason King, a deeded Timber Lodge owner (personally), or is that as “an agent” of MVC/MVW. In my opinion, that important distinction should be explicitly stated by MVC, in their HOA Board Member candidate bios, and MVC’s failure to do that, is highly suspect, and smells of impropriety.

 

[WBP]

Nobody is arguing against MVW's right to run for board seats where either the developer or the Trust has an ownership interest. Also nobody is arguing against your right to vote for such candidate. I believe OP was providing information that I personally would find helpful were I eligible to vote at the property at issue. I also found it helpful because it provides another data point of a pattern and practice that is in the process of being challenged through appropriate channels. I do believe there are likely properties where MVW's board participation is productive. I also know based on conduct that I have personally witnessed that there are instances where they have used their board positions to self-deal.

I’ll add the perspective of (this) former HOA Board member.

MVCI has plenty of opportunity to add their perspective and mission to maintain brand standards and quality through their “staff presence” at HOA Board meetings, both the formal meetings (at which minutes are recorded), and the many meetings (by Zoom and phone, and email exchange) that take place between the formal HOA Board meetings. For those of you who have not attended your resorts HOA Board meetings, there is often an army of MVCI staff (typically, those in senior leadership positions), at those meetings.

In my opinion, MVC does not need “a seat at the table (e.g member of the HOA Board),” as an HOA Board Member, to exercise this agenda. In my opinion, the seats on the HOA Board should be occupied by those who are invested, as members (Unit Owners) of the HOA.

Jason King’s eligibility to sit on the HOA Board, in my opinion, is defined by the HOA’s CC and R’s (for Timber Lodge), which vary from resort to resort. For example, having reviewed the CC and R’s for Sabal Palms, and StreamSide at Vail - Evergreen, I do not believe that MVC is eligible for a seat on the HOA Board, at those resorts, as “THE MANAGER (they are entitled to a seat at the table, based on any units that they own)." I don’t have the time (or desire or energy) to go through the CC and R’s for each MVC resort; from what I can tell, MVC’s right to a seat on the HOA Board (as “THE MANAGER”), varies from one MVC resort to another, and appears to be based on the timing of when the resort was brought to market by MVC.

My take-away from this intellectual exercise, without having reviewed volumes of documents and records = my gut instinct. My gut instinct tells me that the extent to which MVC/MVW is forthright about an HOA Board member candidate, being a Unit Owner, personally, vs a developer/management company designee, is suspect, and does not pass my Smell Test, thereby calling the integrity of an HOA Board Member nominations process, to question.

 

[rcdcowner557]

I agree with the sentiment that MVC employees on the BOD have dual interests:

a) maintain resort quality so that MVC can continue to market them as a high-ish end product.
b) ensure MF rises at a target % so that MVC increases profit via management fee.

I may not like b) very much, but sort of understood that it came with buying into Marriott.

@tahoe - Was it your understanding when you purchased that the HOA board would have no control over Managing Agent? If so, I would appreciate your sharing the foundation for that understanding.

All states in which I have ever purchased real estate (including California) have statutes that protect purchasers from developer overreach. It is not unheard of for developers to include provisions in governing documents that cannot be enforced with the hope that purchasers will never call them on it. This is analogous to employers who put non-compete provisions in employment contracts in states like California where they cannot be enforced.

I do not know the specifics of the governing documents at your property, but I am wondering if there was some provision in your governing documents that you feel somehow gives Marriott the right to charge whatever it deems appropriate under the guise of "brand standards" without any oversight from the HOA?

All owners should look very carefully at any communication that comes to them directly from Marriott (rather than from their HOA board) that uses the term "brand standards." If you care at all about your MF (and I understand that many don't), make sure to contact your board directly and ask what specifically is at issue.

And when I say "contact your board directly," you will need to get actual personal addresses (e-mail or other) for your board members because if you attempt to contact your board through Marriott (e.g., via the GM), you cannot be assured that your board will ever see the communication.

Disputes between Managing Agents and HOA boards are as old as the hills; what is unheard of is a Managing Agent's taking the dispute to the HOA membership. At our property, the Managing Agent sent a communication to the "membership" that included some serious misinformation. As I have stated elsewhere, we were in the process of calling them out on not only that, but overcharging us literally millions of dollars over the years in contravention of the governing documents. Their response was to take over our board with the Trust (they do have a dominant ownership interest) and attempt to quash the very real legal issues by pointing the finger entirely at the whole owners. Again, our building is in the process of working this out through appropriate legal channels, but my overarching point is this: Do not take what you hear or read at face value. Do your own research and speak with the principals before drawing any conclusions.

 

[wuv pooh]

Sure. I still don't get what all the bitching is supposed to accomplish. Clearly the two of you can't get much/any traction with the most involved MVC owners available, so it bodes ill for future activism. How exactly are we being harmed, how is it illegal, and what remedy do you propose that will solve the issue without costing more in attorney fees than the alleged harm? If you can answer this then I would be willing to discuss/consider the merits. Otherwise it is just useless trolling, which is fun every once in a while, but does not really add anything to the community when repeated every few weeks/months.

 

[rcdcowner557]

Sure. I still don't get what all the bitching is supposed to accomplish. Clearly the two of you can't get much/any traction with the most involved MVC owners available, so it bodes ill for future activism. How exactly are we being harmed, how is it illegal, and what remedy do you propose that will solve the issue without costing more in attorney fees than the alleged harm? If you can answer this then I would be willing to discuss/consider the merits. Otherwise it is just useless trolling, which is fun every once in a while, but does not really add anything to the community when repeated every few weeks/months.

Nobody is compelling you to read threads in which you have no interest. The question your umbrage at posts geared towards people who don't share your particular interests leaves me with is this: How do posts that both inform others and solicit information harm you? What compels you to weigh in on threads that you have explicitly stated don't concern you? Why do you care so much? Same question for anyone else who either has already casually chimed in or subsequently chimes in in a manner that is oddly defensive of MVW without having done the most basic due diligence?

 

[Hindsite]

@rcdcowner557 if you haven't considered TUG membership it may be worthwhile as you seek input from the community.

 

[WBP]

Sure. I still don't get what all the bitching is supposed to accomplish. Clearly the two of you can't get much/any traction with the most involved MVC owners available, so it bodes ill for future activism. How exactly are we being harmed, how is it illegal, and what remedy do you propose that will solve the issue without costing more in attorney fees than the alleged harm? If you can answer this then I would be willing to discuss/consider the merits. Otherwise it is just useless trolling, which is fun every once in a while, but does not really add anything to the community when repeated every few weeks/months.

I find RCDCOwner557’s comments very helpful, as he has identified (1) conditions that we, MVC Owners, have experienced for years (my family is going on 40 years of multiple week, MORI, MVCI ownership), and conditions, that, in my opinion, have intensified, over the past 10 years, and (2) conditions that can have an adverse effect on MVC/GRC/RCDC owners, system-wide, in the future.

In my opinion, best we get in check, who has a seat at the HOA Board of Directors table, that the HOA BOD nominations process is clean, and free of any impropriety, and that we demand an explanation and understanding of how and when MVC puts one of their hired hands in a position to sit on an HOA Board, and potentially, control it.

Personally, I think a laudable, purposeful goal of TUG, should be to increase MVC HOA owner engagement in voting on their HOA’s business, and that we should construct and execute a plan/campaign, to increase for example, owner engagement in HOA voting, by 15%, over the next 3 years. That, in my opinion, would change the syntax of TUG, a bit, and get the TUG community of MVC owners engaged in a purposeful, potentially quantifiable, campaign.

 

[Hindsite]

Personally, I think a laudable, purposeful goal of TUG, should be to increase MVC HOA owner engagement in voting on their HOA’s business, and that we should construct and execute a plan/campaign, to increase for example, owner engagement in HOA voting, by 15%, over the next 3 years. That, in my opinion, would change the syntax of TUG, a bit, and get the TUG community of MVC owners engaged in a purposeful, potentially quantifiable, campaign.

Personally, for my run of the mill MVC ownerships, I find the content in candidate profiles completely unsuitable for making and informed decision on the motivations, drivers and priorities of the candidate. Candidates seem more interested in bragging about their qualifications and other offices as opposed to their actual competency to undertake the role. There is no mention of how they would pursue the resolution of the top 3 issues facing the resort.
Faced with such poor quality candidate content, it is quite reasonable for owners to leave it to the resort management to apply their more informed judgement on what might work better for the overall operation of the resort, even with the risk of the associated bias. We do after all pay the resort management to manage the resort on our behalf. Some people clearly do wish to exercise their vote based on their understanding, and its great that they have that choice. It is also quite acceptable for others to decline to participate if they can't find any meaningful use in the process.
Independence of an HOA member does not mean they would at all align with my view of the priorities for the resort, quite possibly the contrary as I have seen the dreadful impact of least cost at any cost relating to MF increases and the associated deterioration in the resort.
It seems that most flavours of approach are flawed in some way, so its just a question of doing what one can and is willing to do to support the management team and HOA in doing the best for the resort and how we wish to enjoy vacations there. Sometimes that works, other times not.

 

[rcdcowner557]

Personally, for my run of the mill MVC ownerships, I find the content in candidate profiles completely unsuitable for making and informed decision on the motivations, drivers and priorities of the candidate. Candidates seem more interested in bragging about their qualifications and other offices as opposed to their actual competency to undertake the role. There is no mention of how they would pursue the resolution of the top 3 issues facing the resort.
Faced with such poor quality candidate content, it is quite reasonable for owners to leave it to the resort management to apply their more informed judgement on what might work better for the overall operation of the resort, even with the risk of the associated bias. We do after all pay the resort management to manage the resort on our behalf. Some people clearly do wish to exercise their vote based on their understanding, and its great that they have that choice. It is also quite acceptable for others to decline to participate if they can't find any meaningful use in the process.
Independence of an HOA member does not mean they would at all align with my view of the priorities for the resort, quite possibly the contrary as I have seen the dreadful impact of least cost at any cost relating to MF increases and the associated deterioration in the resort.
It seems that most flavours of approach are flawed in some way, so its just a question of doing what one can and is willing to do to support the management team and HOA in doing the best for the resort and how we wish to enjoy vacations there. Sometimes that works, other times not.

I am glad you are happy, but am left wondering why you bought when it sounds like what you want is best provided by a Marriott-owned property rather than one that is owned by individuals? If you are willing to share, I am curious what the benefits of ownership are for you and would also be interested to know whether you have ever wholly owned a condominium? I absolutely understand if you don't want to share, but what I am trying to discern is whether owning at your particular property enables you to access what you want at a price that is lower than what you'd pay on the open market. If that is the case, then none of this applies to you . . . yet.

 

[rcdcowner557]

@rcdcowner557 if you haven't considered TUG membership it may be worthwhile as you seek input from the community.

I joined, but it is still showing me as "Guest" for whatever reason. I even put in the codeword as instructed to show membership status, but maybe the system takes a bit to recognize it.

 

[wuv pooh]

Nobody is compelling you to read threads in which you have no interest. The question your umbrage at posts geared towards people who don't share your particular interests leaves me with is this: How do posts that both inform others and solicit information harm you? What compels you to weigh in on threads that you have explicitly stated don't concern you? Why do you care so much? Same question for anyone else who either has already casually chimed in or subsequently chimes in in a manner that is oddly defensive of MVW without having done the most basic due diligence?

So ya got nothin.

It's simple for me:

1. Prove that I am damaged. If not, then it does not matter. You got nothing.
2. If I am damaged, is it legal? - If it is then there is nothing I can do. People have patiently spent a lot of time explaining to you why your issue is perfectly legal for MVC. Again, you got nothing.
3. If I am damaged, and it is not legal, can it be fixed without damaging me even more? Hard to evaluate without one and two and no one has ever been able to cross even that minimal threshold. The remedy of my resort leaving MVC damages me much worse than anything insinuated, much less proved.

But you are correct. I should probably just block you as I have most of the others that have come before. Hope springs eternal that someone will actually deliver something substantive. Haven't seen it in 20 years, but I may have missed one between the HHI resorts, CO resort, etc. that have parted ways in the past.

 

[rcdcowner557]

So ya got nothin.

It's simple for me:

1. Prove that I am damaged. If not, then it does not matter. You got nothing.
2. If I am damaged, is it legal? - If it is then there is nothing I can do. People have patiently spent a lot of time explaining to you why your issue is perfectly legal for MVC. Again, you got nothing.
3. If I am damaged, and it is not legal, can it be fixed without damaging me even more? Hard to evaluate without one and two and no one has ever been able to cross even that minimal threshold. The remedy of my resort leaving MVC damages me much worse than anything insinuated, much less proved.

But you are correct. I should probably just block you as I have most of the others that have come before. Hope springs eternal that someone will actually deliver something substantive. Haven't seen it in 20 years, but I may have missed one between the HHI resorts, CO resort, etc. that have parted ways in the past.

My Lord - You have no clue. Nobody has explained to me how "it" is legal, and I don't even know what you are talking about when you are refer to "it." This thread is not about whether MVW has the right to run a candidate; the thread is about informing HOA members of the fact that MVW is running a candidate.

But back to my earlier questions: Why are my posts so upsetting to you? Why are you here engaging yet again when you have already made clear that none of this matters to you? There are thousands of discussions on here, and you do not seem to contribute as frequently as many others, yet here you are again engaging with me, and engaging in a nonsensical way that merely highlights that you have no idea what you are talking about at that. What is it about this subject that triggers you?

Seriously, I think you should block me for your own mental health. I am asking nothing of you, but rather share @WBP's sentiment that any community is stronger if those who form it participate in a meaningful way. There are quite a few resorts where the owners still have the power to stop a takeover, and for those who are interested in doing that, the information provided in this thread is useful. Just start with the article that @WBP posted above. Moreover, for those whose properties have already been taken over, the information provided herein is useful to them.

Nobody is interfering with your right to vote for any MVW candidate you want to vote for; why does it offend you so that someone might not want to vote for an MVW candidate and might be interested in knowing whether any given candidate is an agent for MVW?