Aruba vacation and travel information on Aruba hotels, beaches, restaurants and so much more

Go Back   Aruba Forums at Visit Aruba > Aruba Timeshare Owners' Corner > Costa Linda Resort

Costa Linda Resort This Forum is for Costa Linda Resort Owners to post/exchange information about their resort. To list PRIVATE rentals,please click here. To list PRIVATE sales, please click here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old Friday, January 5th, 2007, 12:30 AM
Carol's Avatar
Carol Carol is offline
Aruba Expert
 
Join Date: April 26th, 2004
Posts: 451
Carol is on a distinguished road
Default Propaganda/Censorship Continues

There have been a lot of owners posting on the Costa Linda Bulletin Board over the last week, but none of these messages have been "approved", so they remain missing somewhere in cyberspace. However, miraculously today the following letter attacking Cy Holley and praising Judge Schepps was approved and added to the Costa Linda Bulletin Board in two separate sections:


COSTA LINDA BEACH RESORT
COMMENTS FROM A RETIRED BOARD MEMBER
CHUCK GATECLIFF


I have recently become aware that a group of members/owners are striving to recall six of our current board members.

This group is being encouraged by our previous Board Chairman Cy Holley who in his resignation statement of June 8, 2006 stated that he was “ready to let go”.. Look’s like a contradiction to me!

What will happen if a recall of the six members targeted is successful???

We will be left with three individuals who will have the power to elect a Chairman of the Board and appoint six interim Board members who they believe will follow their every decision… at least they better or the three in the minority will structure another recall.

The owners who are proceeding with this effort are being spurred on by individuals who don’t believe in the majority rule process so, if you participate in the recall effort you will be contributing in a dictatorship of our Board of Directors and if this is what you really want then lets just have a one person committee and save the cost of all those meetings.

My perception is that the three minority members in dissension have demonstrated that they see many issues the same and that is the way Cy wants it. We need Board members who often see issues differently and then find middle ground that is best for all members.

The control of your investment in CLBR and the control of your enjoyment when vacationing there is in your hands… DO NOT SUPPORT THIS RECALL ATTEMPT.

I’m preparing the following comments for your review ( I’d much rather be riding my motorcycle) because I was on the Board and served with Judge David Schepps and the Chairman, at that time, Cy Holley and have a perspective gained from the inside “not derived from rumors on the beach, and not derived from conversation outside the board room.

My comments are from my heart and from having been there for 3 years.

First, and I will repeat this…Judge David Schepps was a loyal hard working board member who was chairman of the personnel committee during the time I was on the board.

He is terrific!! And I’m thankful he is willing to give the time and effort needed to perform the duties of Chairman of our Board.

I know from conversations with many members pool side that the perception is anyone can do the job and it only requires minimal effort…. Wrong!!!!

This role takes someone with a strong business background and requires 250 to 500 hours of effort a year, depending on events of individual years. Anything less and we all suffer.

In addition to the business background the board will best serve the members if all board members are involved in the decision making and when a difference of opinion occurs we rely on the majority rule process.

The chairman who can create a team atmosphere will allow the members to benefit from all board members backgrounds and ideas.

This was not possible under Cy Holley as he manages by intimidation and it was his way or the highway. Cy never copied the Board members on the monthly managers report and never shared financial information with all Board members except as a done deal at the Board meetings. Except for our individual specific duties Cy kept us in the dark…..

David manages by motivation and leadership and I’m so pleased he is there and ask everyone of you to support our chairman in this troubled time.

Also I respect and support the other board members targeted for the recall because they voted their heart and good judgment.

The very nature of a committee (Board) is that the majority rules and if that breaks down there is no need for a committee, we could just have one dictator and save all those darn meetings.

Board members are often on opposite sides of an issue, YEAH, that’s why we have nine. If they were always in agreement then eight of them could stay home….

However, this disagreement should always stay behind closed doors in the confines of the board and every member who leaves the meeting has the responsibility to support the decision of the majority. At least 6 of our board members do just that and have earned our support and appreciation.

Cy Holley was unable to attend a meeting and was unable to reverse the decisions of the majority in a special meeting he called in cooperation with two other board members who were in the minority and instead of supporting the majority and the membership he is supporting turmoil!!! THIS IS WRONG!!!!

Now the motivation behind me sitting at the computer instead of on the bike….. I believe in the process, and in teamwork and I’m deeply disappointed in Cy and any others who are taking Board differences to the beach and to the staff and owners.

As owners we elected a board so we didn’t have to get involved in the running of CLBR and now Cy a Board member is involving us….this is wrong!!! And is a sure indication that he is losing it.

Individuals can either lead, follow or get out of the way… in Cy’s statement of June 8, 2006 he said he was ready to follow… that is obliviously not happening so I strongly encourage you to encourage Cy to get out of the way.

His actions are harmful to his image, his health and most important to all CLBR owners.

I know if you visit with staff and with the majority of current and past Board members you will learn that the generally held belief is that the owners are better off with David as our Chairman .

Loyalty and team participation of every Board member to the Chairman and the majority rule process is critical to a successful operation of any business and CLBR is a big business.

Cy is a dictator and is uncomfortable in a supporting role therefore he needs to move on.

Cy told me 3 years ago that he had hand picked an individual as the next chairman. I reminded him at that time the Board would vote the chairman and he said he was sure he could control the vote. I was ecstatic when I heard David had become the chairman and in fact it was not a chair controlled event.

Alice and I have $250,000.00 invested at Costa Linda and we are not only comfortable with David in control but greatly relieved he is there.

We encourage your support of David and the six members of the board that are looking out for our best interest.

Remember it is not just an investment … its our home away from home and we just want to enjoy without becoming involved in the process. That’s why we elected a board.

Also remember there were less then 1000 votes cast out of about 8000 and Cy cast over 300 of these (30% of the total vote) because you the members allowed him to cast the unsold and rental unit votes, there are so few people that get involved in the voting process (less then 1 time share week in 8) and I suspect far less then that want to get involved in the turmoil Cy is creating so please encourage Cy to take his unhappiness elsewhere,

Positive people raise all of us up…. Negative people bring all of us down… so lets surround ourselves with positive people like the 6 board members who are looking out for our best interest, even if they have to do the difficult.

There is a time and season for everything and everyone….. Cy’s time has passed. And it’s time to move on in a positive manner.

I would have been pleased if Cy’s legacy for the time and effort he gave CLBR was a positive glowing long term one, but he has chosen to destroy all the good he had accomplished with the help of a well qualified board, by his current negative actions. So be it!!!

I would be most pleased if Cy were a part of our moving forward, but he has chosen a path that is destructive to every member of Costa Linda so it’s time we elect and support those who have our best interest at heart. That is the majority of our board and as you encourage Cy to go you may also consider asking the others who wish to support Cy’s disruptive actions to join him in the exodus.

My dad passed away 3 years ago at the age of 93 and he believed in loyalty within the team and he impressed this belief on me. It served him for 93 years and me, now for 69 years so I guess it is ok to ask you to support this belief and expect this form all of our Board members. Those who can not follow this path need to remove themselves from an obstructionist position and leave the Board to those who can function as a united team for all members.

A quick question???….. Do you think for a minute if Cy prevails in the recall he will change the dues structure….. If so where will the money come from to operate CLBR? Cy? I think not!!

The recall effort is not about policy or helping the members it is about power and not power of the board but power of an individual and there is nothing in that for us members…

Time for repeating… Judge David Schepps was a hard working board member and is now our Chairman and I support his style and actions and ask you to do like wise.

Alice and I have purchased a home in Florida but after some adjustment time we look forward to many years of beach time and sunshine in Aruba and with David at the helm and the other board members who are looking out for our best interest we expect just that…

I started out to offer a few comments and it looks like a book…but trust me it is not fiction!!!!

PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT THIS RECALL EFFORT!!!

This to will pass…..

Happy New Year, God Bless, and here’s to lots of fun times in Aruba!!!

Chuck Gatecliff


It still amazes me that they expect us to roll over and take it. The fact that they won't allow us to discuss these issues on our own Bulletin Board, and will only post messages that attack certain Board members while praising the Chairman is mind boggling. Do they think we will "drink the kool-aid" and come over to their way of thinking? I know it was probably an effort in futility, but I posted the following response to both of Chuck Gatecliff's postings:


I am both amused and frightened by the fact that the only posts that are being allowed on the Costa Linda Bulletin Board are those that support Judge Schepps. This is supposed to be a Bulletin Board for ALL Costa Linda owners, and should allow us to air ALL view points. Instead we are being forced to air our dirty laundry on public forums.

Mr. Gatecliff, I don’t know where you are getting your information, but at least some of it is inaccurate. The owners at Costa Linda during weeks 47 & 48 put together the propositions/resolutions. Cy Holley had already left Aruba when we put this together, and he did not encourage us in any way, shape or form. NO Board member had any part of these propositions/resolutions.

You also talk about a dictatorship under Mr. Holley, but the way I see it is that we have a real dictatorship now under Judge Schepps. We are being treated liked children, and not allowed to ask questions or state view points. It really is his way or the highway as the owners are not allowed any say. As it stands now, the only way we can have a voice is to vote him out of office.

There were two Board members that were not able to travel to the Dominican Republic (and why was a Board meeting held in the Dominican Republic instead at Costa Linda?). Both Board members asked to participate via teleconference, and this was denied by Judge Schepps. The right to participate via teleconference is allowed in our By-Laws, so what gave Judge Schepps the right to deny this? Was this just another case of his dictatorship, and his way or the highway? If he had followed our By-Laws and allowed these two Board members to participate via teleconference, a Special meeting wouldn’t have been necessary. Judge Schepps caused the special meeting by purposely excluding two Board members from the October meeting.

You clearly like Judge Schepps, and dislike Cy Holley. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but the rest of us should be allowed to express our opinions. My opinion relies strictly on results, not on personal likes/dislikes. Cy Holley RESCUED Costa Linda from Sun Development, and Costa Linda has been in great shape ever since. Under Judge Schepps we’ve been presented with a retroactive maintenance fee increase of about 20%, but we still are unable to get a clear picture as to why, and what the plan is to get us back on track. The increase, or the amount of the increase, has never been the issue. We want to know why, and what the plan is. Our fear is that without a plan we’ll continue to spiral out of control, and that every time there is a problem the answer will be to increase the maintenance fee. We need a good, sound business plan before moving forward.

You also mention needing a strong business background on the Board. However, Judge Schepps seems intent on blocking people with a strong business background.

You may think you’re positive and bring us all up, and that I’m negative and bringing us all down, but I don’t see it that way. I want what’s best for Costa Linda, and that includes free and open discussion for everyone. We’ve been asking questions since week 47, and have yet to get any answers.

I also find it interesting that you, Alan Carlin, and Judge Schepps have posted long letters attacking Cy Holley, but you haven’t given us the FACTS on why the retroactive maintenance fee was necessary, you don’t have a PLAN for our future, and you can’t answer any questions. The way I see it, you are the ones that are being negative with your vicious attacks.

In addition, by voting for the propositions/resolutions, you have not voted to remove 6 Board Members. You are only voting to have this presented to ALL Costa Linda owners, so everyone can vote on this. If you even bothered to read the propositions/resolutions we submitted in a timely fashion (at least six months prior to the Annual Meeting), they were submitted for discussion and action at the Annual Meeting. We are now looking for an Extraordinary Meeting as the original propositions/resolutions were met with no response. The stonewalling by the Board and the Management at Costa Linda forced us into this next step.

I highly encourage everyone to vote yes on the propositions/resolutions so we can get out from under the current dictatorship, and get our voice back.


If anyone needs a copy of the information on the propositions/resolutions as well as the voting sheet, send me a PM, and I'll make sure you get it. We need to take back control of our resort now!
__________________



Last edited by dwippies; Sunday, January 7th, 2007 at 08:25 PM. Reason: request of poster
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #2  
Old Friday, January 5th, 2007, 08:11 AM
Norm Michaels Norm Michaels is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 3rd, 2007
Posts: 3
Norm Michaels is on a distinguished road
Default An opposing view - Propaganda/Censorship Continues

Carol,

Firstly, I agree with you that it is wrong for our own website is keeping our posts locked out. However, I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water, nor do I ever want to return to the days of old. As far as why the meeting was held not at Costa Linda my understanding is as follows. It was a special meeting, and in order to accommodate the Board members rooms had to be rented from the owners of that week. I have heard that the cost to rent from the owners at C/L would have been $18,000.00 more than in the Dominican Republic. Now, I'm not opposed to having my fellow owners make extra money, but I want my resort to save $18K whenever it can. I have not independently verified these facts, so take them as the possible hearsay that it may be. I do not have a clue as to why telephonic participation did not take place, but I sure want to know the answer before I make a drastic decision and recall the majority of the Board. I would think that denying a board member's telephonic participation to be as egrregous as shutting off the abiltiy to post to the BBS. I think I want the answer before I declare a default.

One thing that I am very happy to see is that regardless of which side you are on, the members have been able to unite and take action. You have accomplished what I had tried so unsuccessfully to do. I hope that the collective list of email addresses will be made available to any member who wishes to communicate with those of us who obviously care so very much about Costa Linda.

As far as my differing view:

First, although I am tired of all of the back biting, I believe we are ill equipped at the present time to "throw them all out and start over."

Likewise I do not believe that a recall of 6 Board members is appropriate and therefore I am opposed to the Petition or Proposal or whatever it is called. I do like some of the items, such as the ability to add write-in candidates, but knowing as I do that very few people actually vote (and many of those do not even read what they are voting on) any write-in candidate would never be successful. I suspect that Cy knows that to be the case and is in fact banking on it. I would rather see a way where anyone who wanted to be on the board could submit a resume and it would have to be included in the package for the Member's consideration.

Costa Linda does not work the same way as does some large hotel chain, where profit to the shareholders and efficiency is the only thing that drives the bottom line. We run like a condo association, church, synagogue or other non-profit. There is a small, close knit group of people who really care about what is going on and they carry the load for all the others. They are the ones who serve, who ask questions, and are concerned beyond showing up for their week(s) of ownership. Of course, owning a lot of weeks and having a large financial investment is one clear reason to be involved.

I did see Chuck Gatecliff's post and thanks for posting it here. Now obviously he is in Mr. Schepps' corner; why else would his post get through when all of ours are still blocked? I am still outraged with the official website being locked down and not a place for our free expression. Remember though, it was Cy who originally locked up the website and shut down free expression. For me, who had my posts pulled and my legally sufficient requests denied, it does seem like turn around is fair play.

I suppose in the final analysis, I would say to Greg and especially to Cy, "you can't always run everything that you start." And, there absolutely comes a time to "let go and let others." Wisdom is knowing when that time has come and when to hand over the reins. And, once handed over, resist the urge to pick them up again. Be a good "team member" -- yes, I know there is no "I" in "Team Member", but there is one in "Win". It is sometimes a very difficult thing to do. So, is all this about winning or working as a team?

I think that time is now. Judge Schepps was duly elected as Chair by the Board. He was elected with due process and now needs the opportunity to lead and manage. Lastly, there are always some difficulties and problems when new administrations take over from old ones. As a result, this is one situation where we, as the collective owners need to now be ever vigilent, but give the current Board the opportunity to come together, to work as team and to manage our affairs. We can always kick them all out in June, if that be our will.

Accordingly, it is my considered opinion that the imitative as proposed is not in our best interests. Any member who has cast a proxy should send a letter (an email or fax would work too) to either Mr. Wallace or Mrs. Rappaport voiding and rescinding the authority. And, just for safety's sake, a copy should be sent to Costa Linda advising of such revocation. It needs to be nothing more than: "I ___________________ hereby rescind and revoke that authority given to you in my Proxy dated xx/xx/200_" Oh, and be sure to sign it.

Hang in there all. We have a wonderful home away from home in Aruba. It is financially safe and secure as it has always been and will continue to be.

Best in the New Year to all,
Norm Michaels

Last edited by Norm Michaels; Friday, January 5th, 2007 at 08:18 AM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #3  
Old Monday, January 8th, 2007, 02:02 AM
Carol's Avatar
Carol Carol is offline
Aruba Expert
 
Join Date: April 26th, 2004
Posts: 451
Carol is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Propaganda/Censorship Continues

Norm, where did you get the figures for the Board meeting in the Dominican Republic? You said it was from ďyour understandingĒ, but thatís not what we heard when we were at Costa Linda in November. It wasnít a ďspecialĒ meeting in October, it was the regularly scheduled October Board meeting. I strongly feel all regularly scheduled Board meetings should be at the resort. It gives the Board members the chance to see how everything is, and also allows all of the Committees to hold meetings on the days adjacent to the Board meeting. Also, if anything comes up during the Board meeting that needs to be looked into, verified, researched, etc., you are on site with all of the information on hand. Besides, if cost was the overriding factor, why not hold the meeting at some cheap, central place in the U.S.?

As for why Judge Schepps didnít allow two Board members to participate via teleconference as allowed in our By-Laws, this still remains a mystery. Judge Schepps has refused to answer this question, so weíre all left to our suppositions. I have my own thoughts, but Iíd rather not post them as they are strictly my best guess. If youíd like to hear my views, send me a PM and Iíll let you know.

You and I have discussed the access to the memberís list in the past, and we still are on opposite sides of the fence on this issue. I don't want my personal information released without my consent. Would it make it easier to get the word out to everyone with access to the Member List, yes. Would I give up my right to privacy to make this happen, no. My fear is still that someone would say they need the Member List to send owners a letter about Costa Linda, and then the list would be used for other things.

Norm, the proposition is to replace up to 6 Board Members. That means the owners will decide if we want to remove all 6, or just some of them. If will be up to the vote of all the owners. So, based on the final vote of all owners it could be 0, 6, or any number in between. Either youíre mistaken that all 6 would have to be removed, or you feel that the owners will vote to have all 6 removed so you donít want it even discussed.

As to your comment that ďvery few people actually voteĒ, that is true. However, the voter turnout is about the same as any election in the U.S. If we canít convince people to vote in our federal, state, or town elections, why did you think it would be different at Costa Linda? Do you oppose changes because not enough people vote? I would rather see us vote on the changes, and let the people who want these changes network for the votes. There is no unfair advantage this way, as everyone will be on the same footing. However, if we canít even consider changes because not enough people vote, youíve taken away the power from the owners.

I hadnít experienced any censorship on the Costa Linda Bulletin Board in the past, but Iíll take your word that your posts were censored. When Costa Linda first got the new moderated Bulletin Board I strongly protested about the delay in seeing our posts. I was told it was necessary as some posts had gotten through on the old board that were libelous and slanderous. I never saw them, but took their word, even though I was still unhappy with the lag time. However, what is happening now in unconscionable. It has become the Judge Schepps Bulletin Board, and the owners of Costa Linda no longer have a forum. This is a sign of a true dictatorship.

If I actually thought Judge Schepps wanted to work together with ALL Board members as a team, I donít think we would have needed to take action. However, beginning with him removing people from the Committees when he became Chairman, to excluding two Board members from the October meeting, and right up this point in time where the owners are being censored and he has yet to provide us with the facts and answers to our questions, I strongly feel that we need a change. Cy Holley has already publicly stated that he doesnít wish to become Chairman again, so that shouldnít be a fear of yours. Also, we canít kick them all out in June as you have stated, unless that is put up for a vote in our Convocation package. So, unless the Board takes the steps to approve your recommendation during their February Board meeting, I donít think that will happen. Therefore, our only chance for change is to approve the propositions/resolutions and see that they are part of our Convocation package. That will give all owners the chance to vote on everything. If the Board decides to ignore our request (which was done in accordance with our By-Laws), we have the right to call an Extraordinary meeting to address our concerns. That was put in the By-Laws as protection for the owners, so that we can have a say when the Board is ignoring our wishes.

Therefore, I am requesting that the owners not only continue to keep the signatures on the proxy they have signed, but to please go out and spread the word to any other Costa Linda owners that they know. It is important that the owners have a voice in our resortís future, and this is the only means open to us at this time.
__________________


Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #4  
Old Monday, January 8th, 2007, 09:46 AM
Norm Michaels Norm Michaels is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 3rd, 2007
Posts: 3
Norm Michaels is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Propaganda/Censorship Continues

>>Norm, where did you get the figures for the Board meeting in the Dominican Republic? You said it was from ďyour understandingĒ, but thatís not what we heard when we were at Costa Linda in November.

I'll have to back and check my collected posts -- I get a ton since I manage the "Unofficial" site and there has now been so much activity everywhere and I seem to "cc'd" by a lot of folk. But, the low season rack rate at C/L is $1750 /nite X at least 2 nites X nine Board members is $31,500. So even if it was 50% less expensive in DR that would be about 16K, so its not hard to see how you get to the number and that does not include air fare. (Do we pay for the director's flights in and out?)


>>It wasnít a ďspecialĒ meeting in October, it was the regularly scheduled October Board meeting. I strongly feel all regularly scheduled Board meetings should be at the resort. It gives the Board members the chance to see how everything is, and also allows all of the Committees to hold meetings on the days adjacent to the Board meeting. Also, if anything comes up during the Board meeting that needs to be looked into, verified, researched, etc., you are on site with all of the information on hand. Besides, if cost was the overriding factor, why not hold the meeting at some cheap, central place in the U.S.?


I agree!! I don't know what the true motivation was, or more particularly why this current Board is not acting with cohesiveness, but I'm not happy about it. There is this continued lack of response to us, the members that has been a part of this place from the very beginning. I remember after we first purchased in 1991, I went to the old accounting office and was told that MEMBERS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO SEE THE BUDGET or any financial data for that matter. I was outraged.

>>As for why Judge Schepps didnít allow two Board members to participate via teleconference as allowed in our By-Laws, this still remains a mystery. Judge Schepps has refused to answer this question, so weíre all left to our suppositions. I have my own thoughts, but Iíd rather not post them as they are strictly my best guess. If youíd like to hear my views, send me a PM and Iíll let you know.

I do want to hear your thoughts. Please send me a PM.


>>You and I have discussed the access to the memberís list in the past, and we still are on opposite sides of the fence on this issue. I don't want my personal information released without my consent. Would it make it easier to get the word out to everyone with access to the Member List, yes. Would I give up my right to privacy to make this happen, no. My fear is still that someone would say they need the Member List to send owners a letter about Costa Linda, and then the list would be used for other things.

I know, the recent inappropriate, intentional disclosure of Carlin's name, address, phone # and time that he is away, along with an open invitation to go steal from his home almost has me convinced that access must be restricted. However, the law of Aruba is that the names of the owners be available to the other owners. Holley can not legally change the rules that all timeshares on the island are bound by. Even though I'm starting to agree with the need for some control, the law is the law and Holley was dead wrong in violating the law, regardless of the reasonableness of it. And, it is/was Cy's willingness to flagrantly violate the law on multiple occasions that causes me to question HIS leadership. I want honesty, integrity and respect for lawful authority in my elected leaders, whether they are in Aruba, Washington, or Boston. I want those who have no respect for honesty and the law to be thrown out on their ears and incarcerated if possible. (Sorry, I didn't mean to get so wound up.)


>>Norm, the proposition is to replace up to 6 Board Members. That means the owners will decide if we want to remove all 6, or just some of them. If will be up to the vote of all the owners. So, based on the final vote of all owners it could be 0, 6, or any number in between. Either youíre mistaken that all 6 would have to be removed, or you feel that the owners will vote to have all 6 removed so you donít want it even discussed.

But, voting by the Board is a stacked up deal. Cy says he has 59 weeks. I don't know how may Gale and Susan have. Hopefully, Schepps can eliminate the voting of the unsold weeks. I just am not convinced is will be fair. On the very surface it is the holders of a minority opinion trying to undo that decision by unseating the lawful and duly elected members. That is just wrong.


>>As to your comment that ďvery few people actually voteĒ, that is true. However, the voter turnout is about the same as any election in the U.S. If we canít convince people to vote in our federal, state, or town elections, why did you think it would be different at Costa Linda?

Are you saying that we at C/L are doomed to face the corruption, unfair wielding of power, and lack of responsibility and accountability that we find in our elected officials? I expect more. I expect the joke of: "I'm from the government . . I'm here to help to really mean, I'm gonna get mine and screw you if I can in the process." I don't want that at Costa Linda, neither do you.



>>Do you oppose changes because not enough people vote? I would rather see us vote on the changes, and let the people who want these changes network for the votes. There is no unfair advantage this way, as everyone will be on the same footing. However, if we canít even consider changes because not enough people vote, youíve taken away the power from the owners.


Not surprisingly,
I am in complete agreement with you on the need for change and on the method. It's just the "odor" that surrounds it all. I have not heard from ANYONE (except Mr. Schepps) as to the circumstances surrounding the fee increase. I am not opposed to the increase. If Cy was withholding increases (by using sales revenue) when it seems we should have had increases all along, then that was wrong. Why was that? Why weren't the minutes available showing the discussion of the issue. Where was the dissent and discussion. If Cy was silencing debate, then that was wrong too.


I agree completely that we need responsive answers from those we elected and we've not gotten it. I am glad that Cy has at least made an appearance on this BBS. I only hope that he and Susan and Gale will show up and explain to us why the fee increase WAS NOT necessary, or if it really was, then WHY NOT NOW as opposed to later in the year.


>>I hadnít experienced any censorship on the Costa Linda Bulletin Board in the past, but Iíll take your word that your posts were censored.

I'll ask Cy directly. Cy, did you in fact keep my and others original postings from appearing on the C/L BBS when you were the Chair, yes or no? If yes, please tell me and the others why?

>>When Costa Linda first got the new moderated Bulletin Board I strongly protested about the delay in seeing our posts. I was told it was necessary as some posts had gotten through on the old board that were libelous and slanderous.


First of all, slander is the defamation of another by the spoken word, so since all of this stuff is the written word, it can never be slander. If anything it is libel, which is the intentional defamation of another by publishing (dissemination to third parties) of information which is harmful. (sorry for the very rough definition.) Nonetheless, with regard to either slander or libel, the truth of the matter is always a "perfect" defense. Also, things that are simply someones "opinion" can not be wither slander or libel. There are lots of exceptions to the rules -- notoriety, the person is in a "public position" etc.

>>I never saw them, but took their word, even though I was still unhappy with the lag time. However, what is happening now in unconscionable. It has become the Judge Schepps Bulletin Board, and the owners of Costa Linda no longer have a forum. This is a sign of a true dictatorship.

<<SIGH>> just like the one before. That's why we really need change.

>>>If I actually thought Judge Schepps wanted to work together with ALL Board members as a team, I donít think we would have needed to take action. However, beginning with him removing people from the Committees when he became Chairman, to excluding two Board members from the October meeting, and right up this point in time where the owners are being censored and he has yet to provide us with the facts and answers to our questions, I strongly feel that we need a change.


For the life of me, I can not understand the silence. It is deafening.


>>Cy Holley has already publicly stated that he doesnít wish to become Chairman again, so that shouldnít be a fear of yours.

He does not need to be. He and Gale and Susan (I am only guessing here, but sure would like to know for sure) would be able to elect 1 -6 interim directors. Guess who's decision they are going to follow?

>>Also, we canít kick them all out in June as you have stated, unless that is put up for a vote in our Convocation package. So, unless the Board takes the steps to approve your recommendation during their February Board meeting, I donít think that will happen. Therefore, our only chance for change is to approve the propositions/resolutions and see that they are part of our Convocation package. That will give all owners the chance to vote on everything. If the Board decides to ignore our request (which was done in accordance with our By-Laws), we have the right to call an Extraordinary meeting to address our concerns. That was put in the By-Laws as protection for the owners, so that we can have a say when the Board is ignoring our wishes.

>>Therefore, I am requesting that the owners not only continue to keep the signatures on the proxy they have signed, but to please go out and spread the word to any other Costa Linda owners that they know. It is important that the owners have a voice in our re sort's future, and this is the only means open to us at this time.

This is one of those "worse or rotten" choices.

Mr. Schepps SHOULD be being responsive, but isn't.


Mr. Holley, when he was the Chair practiced the same perverted lack of respect and response to the Members.

Mr. Holley, along with the two other dissents should not be attempting this kind of corporate, leveraged minority proxy fight for control. We will wind up with the same benevolent despotism that we had before.

Tough choices -- worse or rotten.

Norm Michaels
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #5  
Old Tuesday, January 9th, 2007, 08:48 AM
dwippies's Avatar
dwippies dwippies is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: April 15th, 2004
Age: 50
Posts: 8,821
dwippies is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Propaganda/Censorship Continues

norm, only one question and it isn't meant to make you defensive. you quote a rack rate at cl that is way off the scales at $1750/night. is that a typo? as members, we get a 25% discount off of rack rate if i am not mistaken. here is a link to the published rack rates on the costa linda website. http://www.costalinda-aruba.com/resort/rates.shtml in no way is it anywhere near what you stated.

according to that chart, the most expensive prices in october are $751 and $378. reducing it by 25% puts it under $600 and $300 respectively.

if it was a typo, i will be glad to edit the post for you and correct the totals. unfortunately, editing after this length of time can only be done by a moderator.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #6  
Old Tuesday, January 9th, 2007, 01:16 PM
dwippies's Avatar
dwippies dwippies is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: April 15th, 2004
Age: 50
Posts: 8,821
dwippies is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Propaganda/Censorship Continues

norm and i have been in contact and he agrees that he made an error when quoting the prices. they should be as listed on the cl website. the link is below.

norm was in no way intentionally trying to show a raised price to justify anything. it was the typical human error that i know i am guilty of many times a day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sherry View Post
norm, only one question and it isn't meant to make you defensive. you quote a rack rate at cl that is way off the scales at $1750/night. is that a typo? as members, we get a 25% discount off of rack rate if i am not mistaken. here is a link to the published rack rates on the costa linda website. http://www.costalinda-aruba.com/resort/rates.shtml in no way is it anywhere near what you stated.

according to that chart, the most expensive prices in october are $751 and $378. reducing it by 25% puts it under $600 and $300 respectively.

if it was a typo, i will be glad to edit the post for you and correct the totals. unfortunately, editing after this length of time can only be done by a moderator.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #7  
Old Saturday, January 13th, 2007, 03:34 AM
Carol's Avatar
Carol Carol is offline
Aruba Expert
 
Join Date: April 26th, 2004
Posts: 451
Carol is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Propaganda/Censorship Continues

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Michaels
I'll have to back and check my collected posts -- I get a ton since I manage the "Unofficial" site and there has now been so much activity everywhere and I seem to "cc'd" by a lot of folk. But, the low season rack rate at C/L is $1750 /nite X at least 2 nites X nine Board members is $31,500. So even if it was 50% less expensive in DR that would be about 16K, so its not hard to see how you get to the number and that does not include air fare. (Do we pay for the director's flights in and out?)
Norm, I know you had already advised Sherry that you had posted an incorrect room price for Costa Linda. The rates that are paid for the Board members rooms are our published rates less the owner's discount. So, a regular two bedroom unit would be $283.50 per night in October. If any of the Cayena Suites were available, they would also be used at $129.50 for a one-bedroom and $157.50 per night. These rates would be subject to the 19% hotel tax. In addition, when the meetings are held in Aruba, we don't have to rent rooms for the three Aruban Board members, Cy Holley, and Joy and Pearl, so the membership is only paying for rooms for 5 Board members. In the Dominican Republic we'd have to pay for rooms for everyone.

Also, we do pay airfare for the Board members to attend the meetings. Again, when the meetings are in Aruba, we don't have to cover the cost of air for the three Aruban Board members, or Joy and Pearl. For a meeting in the Domincan Republic, we'd have to pay for everyone's airfare.

Just based on the above points, I just don't understand how having a Board meeting in the Domincan Republic could be cheaper than having a Board meeting in Aruba. If you have any information on how the meeting in the Dominican Republic cost us $18,000 less, I'd really appreciate it if you could share it with us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Michaels
There is this continued lack of response to us, the members that has been a part of this place from the very beginning. I remember after we first purchased in 1991, I went to the old accounting office and was told that MEMBERS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO SEE THE BUDGET or any financial data for that matter. I was outraged.
I think the current lack of information, and the continued censorship on our BB is the worst it has ever been. Instead of acknowledging that the members are upset over this, they continue to stonewall us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Michaels
I know, the recent inappropriate, intentional disclosure of Carlin's name, address, phone # and time that he is away, along with an open invitation to go steal from his home almost has me convinced that access must be restricted. However, the law of Aruba is that the names of the owners be available to the other owners. Holley can not legally change the rules that all timeshares on the island are bound by. Even though I'm starting to agree with the need for some control, the law is the law and Holley was dead wrong in violating the law, regardless of the reasonableness of it. And, it is/was Cy's willingness to flagrantly violate the law on multiple occasions that causes me to question HIS leadership. I want honesty, integrity and respect for lawful authority in my elected leaders, whether they are in Aruba, Washington, or Boston. I want those who have no respect for honesty and the law to be thrown out on their ears and incarcerated if possible. (Sorry, I didn't mean to get so wound up.)
I think we're going to have to continue to agree to disagree over this point, but I see we are getting closer. I value my privacy, and I don't want anyone to have access to my personal information without my permission. If Costa Linda were to release everyone's personal information, I would want the right to refuse access to my personal information. So, if there were proper controls and the right to opt out of having my information released, I would be OK with it under those conditions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Michaels
But, voting by the Board is a stacked up deal. Cy says he has 59 weeks. I don't know how may Gale and Susan have. Hopefully, Schepps can eliminate the voting of the unsold weeks. I just am not convinced is will be fair. On the very surface it is the holders of a minority opinion trying to undo that decision by unseating the lawful and duly elected members. That is just wrong.
Again, I think you have the wrong idea. The members would vote on the propositions in a convocation package, either the convocation package we get for the Annual Meeting, or a convocation package that would be sent out before an extraordinary meeting. The Board wouldn't be voting on the propositions, other than casting their votes as owners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Michaels
Are you saying that we at C/L are doomed to face the corruption, unfair wielding of power, and lack of responsibility and accountability that we find in our elected officials? I expect more. I expect the joke of: "I'm from the government . . I'm here to help to really mean, I'm gonna get mine and screw you if I can in the process." I don't want that at Costa Linda, neither do you.
Actually, my point was that the turnout for the members who vote on the annual convocation package is no different than the turnout for any election in the U.S. If we haven't been able to increase the voter turnout in our federal, state, and town elections, I don't know how we'll increase the voter turnout at Costa Linda. Do I see this changing, no. Would I like to see the voter turnout increase, yes. If you have any ideas on how to get the vote out, I'd love to hear them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Michaels
Not surprisingly, I am in complete agreement with you on the need for change and on the method. It's just the "odor" that surrounds it all. I have not heard from ANYONE (except Mr. Schepps) as to the circumstances surrounding the fee increase. I am not opposed to the increase. If Cy was withholding increases (by using sales revenue) when it seems we should have had increases all along, then that was wrong. Why was that? Why weren't the minutes available showing the discussion of the issue. Where was the dissent and discussion. If Cy was silencing debate, then that was wrong too.


I agree completely that we need responsive answers from those we elected and we've not gotten it. I am glad that Cy has at least made an appearance on this BBS. I only hope that he and Susan and Gale will show up and explain to us why the fee increase WAS NOT necessary, or if it really was, then WHY NOT NOW as opposed to later in the year.
It is my understanding that Cy, Susan, and Gale are trying to work with the Board, which is why you haven't seen any rogue postings from them. Cy only put up his post because he has been censored on the CLBR BB, and we wanted his clarification heard.

If you have heard from Judge Schepps with factual information surrounding the retroactive maintenance fee, I'd love to hear it. However, all I've heard is some very weak excuses, and no facts. To this day all I have seen is finger pointing, and trying to put the blame somewhere else, but no factual explanation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Michaels
I'll ask Cy directly. Cy, did you in fact keep my and others original postings from appearing on the C/L BBS when you were the Chair, yes or no? If yes, please tell me and the others why?
I don't think you'll get an answer from Cy on this. I think he posted his clarification and hasn't been back. You probably should send him an e-mail with these questions. Cy did include his e-mail address in his clarification post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Michaels
First of all, slander is the defamation of another by the spoken word, so since all of this stuff is the written word, it can never be slander. If anything it is libel, which is the intentional defamation of another by publishing (dissemination to third parties) of information which is harmful. (sorry for the very rough definition.) Nonetheless, with regard to either slander or libel, the truth of the matter is always a "perfect" defense. Also, things that are simply someones "opinion" can not be wither slander or libel. There are lots of exceptions to the rules -- notoriety, the person is in a "public position" etc.
Actually, I was just referring to what is actually posted on the Members Bulletin Board page on the CLBR web site:

"Slander, profanity, libel or insults will not be permitted on the CLBR website or it's Forums. The Forums are designed to get members views, including opinions on what will make CLBR a better place. The Forums are not to be used to defame any persons, for any reason. Please know that even if Management doesn't agree with them, constructive comments will always be allowed on the Costa Linda Forums."

I find it interesting that Management continues to ignore the rules that they posted on the web site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Michaels
He does not need to be. He and Gale and Susan (I am only guessing here, but sure would like to know for sure) would be able to elect 1 -6 interim directors. Guess who's decision they are going to follow?
I am sending you a PM on this, just like I did about the teleconference issue, for the same reasons. What I will tell you in my PM is strictly my opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Michaels
This is one of those "worse or rotten" choices.

Mr. Schepps SHOULD be being responsive, but isn't.


Mr. Holley, when he was the Chair practiced the same perverted lack of respect and response to the Members.

Mr. Holley, along with the two other dissents should not be attempting this kind of corporate, leveraged minority proxy fight for control. We will wind up with the same benevolent despotism that we had before.

Tough choices -- worse or rotten.

Norm Michaels
Again, as I have stated in the past, no one from the Board is behind the propositions/resolutions. So this isn't a "corporate, leveraged minority proxy fight for control". It is a group of members who are fed up with the stonewalling, lack of factual information, and the appalling lack of fiscal responsibility. The only way we can get back on track is to make a change now.
__________________


Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2006 -2011 - CaribMedia.com