How is the BOD proposing a 4.8% increase any dumber than MVC asking for a 19.7% increase? Higher insurance costs don't require a 19.7% increase in the total MF's. I wish the BOD at some other MVC resorts would stand up to MVC when they are asking for increases far exceeding inflation while owners really have no power to challenge.
If it were true, then the "significant" voting block would have already replaced the BOD.
Well it is pretty arrogant to think that you know better than someone who has been managing commercial properties for 70 years, but I digress.
Post 454I'm sure this thread is fascinating but is there a tldr version?
I'm sure this thread is fascinating but is there a tldr version?
... and my point is if that is the case, it would have been done. This problem that we are now reading about has been years in the making.
Do we know the term limits for board members? How often do they come up for vote. I suspect they aren't all up for vote at the same time.
A quick google search shows a 2-year term for 2 BOD positions at a time. This is from 2018.
I'm certain they do and don't expect to hear about it aired in public.
It's dumber because based on the limited information provided in the Board's letter, it was based on nothing more than a metric unrelated to resort management and putting their fingers in the sky to feel the wind. As many others have pointed out, my primary problem is that the Board has not pointed to any line items that can be reasonably adjusted to account for where the budget has fat to be trimmed. I fully expect that if the Board concluded the MVC proposed budget was inflated and approved a significantly lower budget, they would have at their hands a litany of areas where savings could be identified. However, they have not articulated anything in their letter to owners.
Exactly. Looking at the single (2024) year proposed increase of 19.7% as outrageous, completely ignores that there have already been two years of budget shortfalls. This compounding effect means 2024 must both absorb previous shortfalls and be increased to ensure no future shortfalls.
Term limits for BOD positions was the expectation I had when I asked earlier in the thread about the BOD make-up, specifically if/how many of the members had been seated during all of the legal entanglements between the BOD and Marriot (looking for patterns,) but according to longtime owner @TimGolobic (Post #110) there aren't the Marriott-typical term limits for the GR Tahoe BOD positions:
Tim is more than just a longtime owner, as anyone who owns at GRC knows, and I would take his knowledge to the bank. He’s also not someone to speak unless he has something of value to say.
Do you mean Tom McCormack, the VP whose signature is on the letter that was sent to owners informing them of the dire situation at their resort?
I'm not in a position to question Tim either (and didn't question his knowledge until the document in Post #462 surfaced,) but there needs to be an explanation for why his understanding of the BOD term limits appears to conflict with the information that was put in writing in the 2018 annual meeting packet. Doesn't there?
I see no evidence that the BOD or MVC actually went through this process. There is a big difference between the 5% and 20% proposals and I don't believe that objective individuals can't work together to come up with a reasonable compromise. Having read posts from both sides, (including post 110), nobody is without fault in this matter. I own at seven MVC resorts (since 1984) and review the details of each budget, although some resorts (Oceana Palms and Ocean Point) make it difficult to compare costs per unit to the previous year. MVC management today is not the same as it was when the Marriott family was involved. I've noticed that resort BOD's with strong owner representation appear to be doing a better job of managing MF increases than those that are heavily trust owned. Keep in mind that MVC makes more money at resorts with higher increases. I also think that the management company should pay any expenses incurred due to their mismanagement (such as NCV lawsuit and roof problems at Ocean Point).
Here I am, not speaking unless something of value to say (thanks igopogo). I've only been skimming over the last several pages of comments as they seem to have gone off the rails [content deleted by Moderator]. A Board member serves a 2-year term, but nowhere does it say there is a limit on the number of terms an owner can serve, ie: a term limit. There has been no violation by any of our incredibly dedicated and under-appreciated Board members that have served for multiple terms.
The question is, what power does Marriott actually have? How many of the severed former Marriott timeshares were not developed (and the governing docs written) by Marriott? We are fighting in a fog of ignorance.
I hit Like on your post and then removed it, because while I appreciate that you're contributing here, I don't have all the information that you apparently do so I can't say that I agree with all of your points.
I really don't understand what difference it makes whether Marriott developed a resort from the ground up or acquired it from another entity or took over the management of it from another entity. Much as all of the ownership entitlements and restrictions that attach to a single interval (Week or Points or Fractionals) transfer to all succeeding owners upon resale/gift/family transfer unless the original docs or transfer docs specify differently, the same is true (and delineated as such) if a succeeding Manager takes over and a new Management Agreement is contracted. Any succeeding Manager would, therefore, be subject to the same t&c's as in the original Master Deed, Timeshare Declaration, etc docs or similar ones unless otherwise specified, but the management t&c's would become whatever is delineated in the new Management Agreement. We have that document and it's not substantially different from any that exist at other Marriott timeshares, so why is there a question of whether Marriott is entitled to enforce their typical management "style" that's indicated in the existing, current Management Agreement?
Sure. Or it could just be a combination of 40+ feet of snow blowing the removal budget, followed by devastating wildfires skyrocketing insurance premiums, a $20 minimum wage requirement for fast food workers increasing salaries, regulated utility rates increasing combined with a summer heat dome/winter polar vortex, HVAC parts quadrupling, paying for previous years deficit in current budget, etc. You can't just put your head in the sand and say CPI nah nah nah nah.
