Trouble - Marriott Grand Residence Tahoe [Management Agreement in Jeopardy?]

[LeslieDet]

100% have never heard of minutes being published before being approved, which almost always happens as part of the normal agenda at the NEXT board meeting so all members can review prior to approval.

the fact that the board is not only disputing the approval, but the content within is indeed wild!

shame they dont record the meetings via zoom or similar, makes it very easy to clear up any disputes!

Just FYI - California law requires that minutes of an HOA be available within 30 days. The California HOA law is referred to as the David-Stirling Act. Here's a quote from one of the authors of the Act regarding draft minutes. All cites are to California Civil Code:

"Within 30 Days. Open meeting board minutes, draft minutes proposed for adoption that are marked to indicate draft status, or a summary of the minutes of any meeting of the board of directors of an association, must be made available to members within 30 calendar days of the meeting. (Civ. Code § 4950.)

Corrections. Once a draft has been prepared, the Secretary or Recording Secretary can distribute the minutes to the board for review and feedback to the Secretary on any corrections that need to be made. This does not violate the Open Meeting Act because it’s not an email discussion. Instead, it is feedback from individual directors to the secretary on corrections and revisions. The draft minutes then go into the board packet for the next meeting for board discussion and approval.

Distribute Upon Request. The minutes, proposed minutes, or summary minutes must be distributed to any member of the association upon request. Associations may charge for copying costs. Failure to provide minutes can result in penalties against the association. (Civ. Code § 5235.)

Unauthorized Publication. Without board authorization, management companies do not have a "right" to publish draft minutes. As managing agents, they take their direction from the board. If the board instructs them, for whatever reason, to hold on the publication of draft minutes, the management company does not have a right to ignore the board's direction. The board must make minutes available in draft form for review by the membership within 30 days of the meeting. If there is concern about publishing draft minutes that may contain errors, boards should have the minutes sent to them for review and feedback to the minute-taker for corrections before they are posted.

DRAFT Minutes. As noted above, there is no requirement that draft minutes be posted. There is, however, a requirement that they be distributed to members who request it. If and when draft minutes are posted or distributed, they should have a large "DRAFT" stamp on the page or marked "DRAFT only--not approved by the Board" or something similar to indicate the minutes have not yet been approved by the board and may contain errors."

 

[LeslieDet]

For board meetings, at another MVC resort which I have been part of, the secretary was an MVC Administrator.
They would never ever release minutes before the Owner Board had signed them off though!

Just FYI - state law controls the operations of the HOA and imposes requirements on the HOA for distribution of minutes, etc. Everything is regulated by law, and in CA, the HOA laws seem to be getting more and more cumbersome to comply with when running an HOA.

 

[vikingsholm]

Phase 1, the attempt to discredit and bully the Board of Directors into submission, seems to be ending without achieving its intended outcome.

Well if that has been the goal, and I'm not sure I'd disagree seeing these actions - what we need as owners is a new Marriott Manager at Grand Res, not a new board. And better corporate management and behavior from MVC as well, which seems to have gone downhill since they got their empire complex on their acquisition binge a few years back.

But the board AND Marriott both need to compromise a bit - and we'd better not lose Marriott managing it due to unreasonable bullheadedness on either side.

 

[LeslieDet]

Wild...

Just FYI - I'm not passing judgment on any action taken by the BOD or by management - but it seems as though your BOD president might want to brush up on CA HOA laws that govern the operation of all HOAs in the state, including GRCLT.

 

[dioxide45]

Does the GRCLT normally send out the meeting minutes every time? Or was this something unusual?

 

[bazzap]

Just FYI - state law controls the operations of the HOA and imposes requirements on the HOA for distribution of minutes, etc. Everything is regulated by law, and in CA, the HOA laws seem to be getting more and more cumbersome to comply with when running an HOA.

OK. Although we own weeks in every region MVC operates in, our only US ownership is in Nevada at Grand Chateau.

 

[LeslieDet]

I think they'd better book a bigger room for the next board meeting.

FYI - "Beginning January 1, 2024, board and membership meetings can be held virtually without designating a physical location for members to attend. To hold virtual meetings where members are allowed to attend, the following conditions must be satisfied (Civ. Code § 4926(a))". This change in law should enable all owners at GRCLT to be able to at least watch the public portion of the HOA meetings.

In addition, regarding your HOA board president's statement that he wants all meetings to be recorded, this is noted by the HOA experts in CA: "Recording Meetings. With the board's permission, the secretary may record open board meetings to assist in the preparation of minutes. Once minutes have been approved by the board, the recording should be erased. Even though the secretary may record meetings to prepare minutes, the board can disallow recordings by others, whether it be members or other directors. If an association has kept recordings of its meetings, members might request copies. If so, the board can, but is not required to, provide access to the recordings. MInutes must be provideded by statute but recordings used to prepare minutes are not on the list of records required by statute to be made available to members for review and copying."

 

[timsi]

Just FYI - California law requires that minutes of an HOA be available within 30 days. The California HOA law is referred to as the David-Stirling Act. Here's a quote from one of the authors of the Act regarding draft minutes. All cites are to California Civil Code:

"Within 30 Days. Open meeting board minutes, draft minutes proposed for adoption that are marked to indicate draft status, or a summary of the minutes of any meeting of the board of directors of an association, must be made available to members within 30 calendar days of the meeting. (Civ. Code § 4950.)

Corrections. Once a draft has been prepared, the Secretary or Recording Secretary can distribute the minutes to the board for review and feedback to the Secretary on any corrections that need to be made. This does not violate the Open Meeting Act because it’s not an email discussion. Instead, it is feedback from individual directors to the secretary on corrections and revisions. The draft minutes then go into the board packet for the next meeting for board discussion and approval.

Distribute Upon Request. The minutes, proposed minutes, or summary minutes must be distributed to any member of the association upon request. Associations may charge for copying costs. Failure to provide minutes can result in penalties against the association. (Civ. Code § 5235.)

Unauthorized Publication. Without board authorization, management companies do not have a "right" to publish draft minutes. As managing agents, they take their direction from the board. If the board instructs them, for whatever reason, to hold on the publication of draft minutes, the management company does not have a right to ignore the board's direction. The board must make minutes available in draft form for review by the membership within 30 days of the meeting. If there is concern about publishing draft minutes that may contain errors, boards should have the minutes sent to them for review and feedback to the minute-taker for corrections before they are posted.

DRAFT Minutes. As noted above, there is no requirement that draft minutes be posted. There is, however, a requirement that they be distributed to members who request it. If and when draft minutes are posted or distributed, they should have a large "DRAFT" stamp on the page or marked "DRAFT only--not approved by the Board" or something similar to indicate the minutes have not yet been approved by the board and may contain errors."

Leslie, this is the court of public opinion, not a court of law. While you are trying to prove that the manager has done nothing illegal, and we do not know that without all the relevant details, everyone is trying to tell you that their move appears to be highly unusual. I will leave it at that, although you may want to tell us if you did your own research for this or if it was provided to you by their legal team.

 

[Superchief]

Leslie, this is the court of public opinion, not a court of law. While you are trying to prove that the manager has done nothing illegal, and we do not know that without all the relevant details, everyone is trying to tell you that their move appears to be highly unusual. I will leave it at that, although you may want to tell us if you did your own research for this or if it was provided to you by their legal team.

From the posts in this thread, we really don't know when the minutes were prepared and if/when they were sent to the BOD for their review. It appears that MVC management at least broke the law by distributing to members unapproved minutes that were not marked 'Draft'. Regardless of the technical legalities of this whole situation, MVC management is clearly not operating with owners' best interest in mind.

I have owned MVC resorts since 1986 and have definitely noticed a decline in MVC management's transparency and consideration of owners. There are now significant MF expense categories that aren't clearly explained and the corporate overhead costs are becoming a larger component of MF's each year.

 

[Hindsite]

I have owned MVC resorts since 1986 and have definitely noticed a decline in MVC management's transparency and consideration of owners. There are now significant MF expense categories that aren't clearly explained and the corporate overhead costs are becoming a larger component of MF's each year.

I've found that it is variable by resort and by the quality of the management teams. Its gone from absolute dictatorship, through lackluster and downright useless and thankfully seems to be back at decent balanced position
What do you include in "Corporate overhead costs" for mine there is the fixed management fee?

 

[LeslieDet]

Leslie, this is the court of public opinion, not a court of law. While you are trying to prove that the manager has done nothing illegal, and we do not know that without all the relevant details, everyone is trying to tell you that their move appears to be highly unusual. I will leave it at that, although you may want to tell us if you did your own research for this or if it was provided to you by their legal team.

LOL - I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply providing info to make folks aware of what CA law is regarding minutes. I don't care if any one's "move" is unusual or not. But folks who profess outrage at minutes being distributed without being formally approved by a BOD at a meeting 3 months down the road need to grasp that it is absolutely irrelevant what the "court of public opinion" thinks. There are actually laws that govern how HOAs function in CA. And, you are horribly offensive in your assumptions. As a lawyer who practiced in CA for 35 years and as the president of my HOA, I am very familiar with the applicable HOA laws and requirements, and I'd think folks would rather want to know how it actually works IRL instead of engaging in rampant conspiracy theories like you have consistently demonstrated are the only thing you ever engage in.

I hate to burst your bubble, but facts actually matter. No one has presented the facts. That letter from the BOD president indicates that he thinks how minutes were prepared and distributed in the past 21 years should control how things are done in 2023. He has a rude awakening. The laws have changed. And, I don't know, and neither do you, what efforts were made to finalize the minutes, frankly, I don't even care. The point that you obviously cannot grasp is that there is a legal process that oversees HOAs in CA. That is what matters, not a ridiculous "court of public opinion." Rumors and innuendo do nothing to help the owners at GRCLT. Riling up folks by using rumors and innuendo is a complete disservice to all owners.

 

[davidvel]

FYI - "Beginning January 1, 2024, board and membership meetings can be held virtually without designating a physical location for members to attend. To hold virtual meetings where members are allowed to attend, the following conditions must be satisfied (Civ. Code § 4926(a))". This change in law should enable all owners at GRCLT to be able to at least watch the public portion of the HOA meetings.

In addition, regarding your HOA board president's statement that he wants all meetings to be recorded, this is noted by the HOA experts in CA: "Recording Meetings. With the board's permission, the secretary may record open board meetings to assist in the preparation of minutes. Once minutes have been approved by the board, the recording should be erased. Even though the secretary may record meetings to prepare minutes, the board can disallow recordings by others, whether it be members or other directors. If an association has kept recordings of its meetings, members might request copies. If so, the board can, but is not required to, provide access to the recordings. MInutes must be provideded by statute but recordings used to prepare minutes are not on the list of records required by statute to be made available to members for review and copying."

Are your snippets from https://www.davis-stirling.com ? I ask because you have quotes, but do not say the source. Also, surprised that website would have the typos in the quote, so it is hard to tell if you added to what you copied, or this was in the source quote.

 

[vikingsholm]

Does the GRCLT normally send out the meeting minutes every time? Or was this something unusual?

We seem to get them each time. I think it's quarterly, but haven't paid enough attention to that detail to be sure.

 

[LeslieDet]

Are your snippets from https://www.davis-stirling.com ? I ask because you have quotes, but do not say the source. Also, surprised that website would have the typos in the quote, so it is hard to tell if you added to what you copied, or this was in the source quote.

Yes, I copied and pasted, and yes, the info in quotes is from that website. I would not have put it in quotes if I had not copied it directly from the website.

 

[davidvel]

Yes, I copied and pasted, and yes, the info in quotes is from that website. I would not have put it in quotes if I had not copied it directly from the website.

Of course not, my Google must be broken. I searched that site for the quote and Google couldn't find it. Do you have a citation to the URL of that page so I can report it to the webmaster?

 

[timsi]

LOL - I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply providing info to make folks aware of what CA law is regarding minutes. I don't care if any one's "move" is unusual or not. But folks who profess outrage at minutes being distributed without being formally approved by a BOD at a meeting 3 months down the road need to grasp that it is absolutely irrelevant what the "court of public opinion" thinks. There are actually laws that govern how HOAs function in CA. And, you are horribly offensive in your assumptions. As a lawyer who practiced in CA for 35 years and as the president of my HOA, I am very familiar with the applicable HOA laws and requirements, and I'd think folks would rather want to know how it actually works IRL instead of engaging in rampant conspiracy theories like you have consistently demonstrated are the only thing you ever engage in.

I hate to burst your bubble, but facts actually matter. No one has presented the facts. That letter from the BOD president indicates that he thinks how minutes were prepared and distributed in the past 21 years should control how things are done in 2023. He has a rude awakening. The laws have changed. And, I don't know, and neither do you, what efforts were made to finalize the minutes, frankly, I don't even care. The point that you obviously cannot grasp is that there is a legal process that oversees HOAs in CA. That is what matters, not a ridiculous "court of public opinion." Rumors and innuendo do nothing to help the owners at GRCLT. Riling up folks by using rumors and innuendo is a complete disservice to all owners.

You should not find my question offensive; it is a consequence of the fact that you have been communicating at length with senior management and the legal team, as you previously stated. It is only natural to know when it is your position versus theirs. You do not seem to find it odd that the management has distributed the minutes without consulting all the members of the Board of Directors, especially in a contentious situation like this. Clearly, we cannot talk about cooperation. I don't know what was actually said in those meetings or if the budget can be reduced without diminishing the quality of the resort, but on a personal level, the management does not seem to care about reconciliation with the board members.

 

[Ken555]

NVM

 

[LeslieDet]

it is a consequence of the fact that you have been communicating at length with senior management and the legal team, as you previously stated. It is only natural to know when it is your position versus theirs. You do not seem to find it odd that the management has distributed the minutes without consulting all the members of the Board of Directors, especially in a contentious situation like this.

I am not an owner at GRCLT and have not communicated in any fashion whatsoever with corporate on this issue, nor would I. I don't have any position despite your unfounded assumptions and I have not formed any opinion as to the minutes as I am not aware of the relevant facts. What I do believe is important in this instance is the applicable law that governs HOAs in CA. Folks like you enjoy riling up others by pushing disinformation disguised as outrage at corporate conduct, regardless of whether or not that conduct complies with the applicable law.

Regarding my direct communication with corporate and the legal department, I created a FB group for MVC owners in 2023, and I address MVC owner topics in my group. As a voice for my fellow owners, I have and will continue to communicate directly with corporate when there are matters that impact my fellow owners or concerns I have regarding my specific ownership. I've found the MVW corporate staff and the legal department willing to respond to my inquiries. And, I appreciate their willingness to communicate directly with me.

I'm not advocating for or against the company here, and your inability to see that is frankly ridiculous. My thoughts and concerns are for the impacted owners. From the info that has been provided in this particular feed, FWIW the only opinion I've formed is that the existing BOD has made unreasonable demands and is unable to grasp that there are operating costs for a resort like GRC including insurance and utilities that cannot be boxed into adjustments tied solely to an irrelevant San Francisco CPI; and IMO the BOD's insistence that no bills be paid if they exceed a budget line item is ludicrous, and reeks of either their ineptitude or their bad faith breach of fiduciary duty to the owners that BOD is supposed to represent.

 

[timsi]

I am not an owner at GRCLT and have not communicated in any fashion whatsoever with corporate on this issue, nor would I. I don't have any position despite your unfounded assumptions and I have not formed any opinion as to the minutes as I am not aware of the relevant facts. What I do believe is important in this instance is the applicable law that governs HOAs in CA. Folks like you enjoy riling up others by pushing disinformation disguised as outrage at corporate conduct, regardless of whether or not that conduct complies with the applicable law.

Regarding my direct communication with corporate and the legal department, I created a FB group for MVC owners in 2023, and I address MVC owner topics in my group. As a voice for my fellow owners, I have and will continue to communicate directly with corporate when there are matters that impact my fellow owners or concerns I have regarding my specific ownership. I've found the MVW corporate staff and the legal department willing to respond to my inquiries. And, I appreciate their willingness to communicate directly with me.

I'm not advocating for or against the company here, and your inability to see that is frankly ridiculous. My thoughts and concerns are for the impacted owners. From the info that has been provided in this particular feed, FWIW the only opinion I've formed is that the existing BOD has made unreasonable demands and is unable to grasp that there are operating costs for a resort like GRC including insurance and utilities that cannot be boxed into adjustments tied solely to an irrelevant San Francisco CPI; and IMO the BOD's insistence that no bills be paid if they exceed a budget line item is ludicrous, and reeks of either their ineptitude or their bad faith breach of fiduciary duty to the owners that BOD is supposed to represent.

I find it very odd that you always talk about the fiduciary duty of the BOD and try to disparage its members, never talk about the fiduciary duty of the management company either when it comes to managing the resorts or the Abound trust.

 

[bizaro86]

regardless of whether or not that conduct complies with the applicable law.

Conduct can be unethical and even reprehensible while still complying with applicable law.

For a MVC example, you might say that their salespeople consistently lying to prospects while hiding behind a "no verbal representations" clause is strictly legal but clearly unethical.

 

[travelhacker]

Does the GRCLT normally send out the meeting minutes every time? Or was this something unusual?

They send them out regularly.

 

[LeslieDet]

Conduct can be unethical and even reprehensible while still complying with applicable law.

For a MVC example, you might say that their salespeople consistently lying to prospects while hiding behind a "no verbal representations" clause is strictly legal but clearly unethical.

Clearly, you've never read any of my discussion pieces on misleading sales pitches and how they violate the terms of the corporate ethics code. I've been writing about misleading pitches for years now.

You can generalize my comments however you want in an effort to skew the meaning. You jump to an unsupported conclusion that purported unethical and reprehensible conduct happened, without any facts. You may not like it, but I was basing my opinion that the BOD appears to be failing at fulfilling its fiduciary duties based upon accepted facts in this feed, which facts are represented by minutes from July 2023, as well as the BOD president's own words. They cling to an irrelevant CPI and they are aware of the operating deficits and increases in utilities and insurance and nevertheless refuse to acknowledge that it is more costly to operate the location. But sure, go ahead and continue tossing out irrelevant claims relating to misleading sales pitches. I'll stick with info that is offered in an effort to help owners at GRCLT.

 

[LeslieDet]

I find it very odd that you always talk about the fiduciary duty of the BOD and try to disparage its members, never talk about the fiduciary duty of the management company either when it comes to managing the resorts or the Abound trust.

I find it very odd that you pretend to know what I write about or how I've addressed topics surrounding corporate conduct or the Trust.

I also find it odd that you are so blinded by your hatred towards the corporate world that you refuse to even acknowledge for a moment that the attitude the GRCLT BOD has taken as it relates to the budget and site operating costs and how the BOD insisted on tying the budget to an irrelevant CPI is somehow appropriate and should, in the world in which you function, be accepted without calling it out. Aren't you the one who only cares about the "court of public opinion"? LOL

 

[timsi]

I find it very odd that you pretend to know what I write about or how I've addressed topics surrounding corporate conduct or the Trust.

I also find it odd that you are so blinded by your hatred towards the corporate world that you refuse to even acknowledge for a moment that the attitude the GRCLT BOD has taken as it relates to the budget and site operating costs and how the BOD insisted on tying the budget to an irrelevant CPI is somehow appropriate and should, in the world in which you function, be accepted without calling it out. Aren't you the one who only cares about the "court of public opinion"? LOL

You persist in misrepresenting the board's statements. It is evident that they have looked at the SF CPI as guidance, yet they have consistently approved increases exceeding the CPI year after year.

By the way in case you did not know, even when a resort generates substantial and growing surpluses every year, Marriott still asks for more money the following years. Why?

 

[TUGBrian]

october minutes would not normally be approved until november, and then made available in december. this is par for the course for just about any HOA in any state im aware of.

i can see how this could be delayed even longer if there was a dispute about the contents of the minutes, and thus they would NOT have been approved as usual at the following months meeting.

also "made available to" is NOT the same as "published" or "distributed to". there is no legal standard or requirement for an association to physically distribute the minutes of a meeting that I am aware of....except on request.