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, 02:04 PM
Linda R Linda R is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 2nd, 2007
Posts: 29
Linda R is on a distinguished road
I Love Aruba Response To Schepps" Surrogates From Concerned Costa Linda Members

RESPONSE TO CHUCK GATECLIFF’S COMMENTS TO COSTA LINDA MEMBERS


Dear Mr. Gatecliff:

I am appalled at the message you posted on Costa Linda’s member bulletin board, which urges members not to support efforts to remove Mr. Schepps and other directors from the CL board. I wish to respond on behalf of hundreds of CL members who are quite fed up with personal attacks, censorship and stone-walling instead of the relevant information, professionalism and, honesty they have a right to expect from their directors.

I am Linda Rapaport, of the “group of members” that you refer to in your message. I can assure you we are not part of some disruptive fringe group. My husband Robin and I own three weeks at CL where we have been members since 1999. It is fairly clear from your description of us as merely “a group,” that you are unaware that we are among an ever-growing group of members representing some 700 unit/shares (that’s right…700) who, in just a few short weeks, have signed documents seeking the recall of Mr. Schepps and his majority. Just this week, during only three days at the resort, representatives of the “group of members” collected signatures reflecting some 200 additional unit/shares. We are averaging about 20-25 signatures a day being faxed to us. Your statement that you respect the power of the majority may soon be put to the test.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, Mr. Gatecliff, but, with all due respect, you are not entitled to your own facts. Much of what you contend in your message is simply not true. Before I provide examples, I’d just like to say that I have no doubt that what you have written — as you take pains to point out in your message — is from the heart. And that appears to be the problem. It is clear that you have obviously taken to heart the past disagreements and disappointments with the former chairman of the board when you were a CL board member.

It is common knowledge that, as a Costa Linda member and a former Board Member, you were infuriated over plans to build the luxury suites because they are to be located right near your 5th floor three-bedroom unit. You vehemently opposed the luxury units for personal reasons, despite the obvious economic benefit to the Costa Linda. You were invited by the Board to present your concerns to them and the Board engaged the architect to develop and present to you and the other affected members, a view of what you would be seeing from your decks.

The design adopted by the Board protected your view and the Board voted to go ahead. Still, you decided to purchase a place in Florida because you were concerned that the new, adjacent suites might be too noisy. I understand your weeks have been up for sale. I believe you should have disclosed these facts in your comments to the membership. You are NOT an objective, former board member offering inside information from the board room, but someone with a personal grievance against the former chairman, who, sadly, has become the scapegoat and smokescreen for the transgressions of the new board. At the end of the day, Mr. Gatecliff, your personal issues with Cy Holley over this personal disappointment are quite irrelevant to the current trouble our resort is experiencing.

Please allow me to set the record straight on a number of points mistakenly made in your message:

MYTH #1: Removal of Mr. Schepps and five other board members has been sought or encouraged by the former Chairman Cy Holley.

Patently absurd. During week 48, I was approached by members who don’t even know who Cy Holley is, to help draft a petition. Some had attended a weekly general manager’s meeting during week 47 and were very upset by the refusal of board members Berger and Walker to answer the most basic of questions, like how board members voted or what the budget was. While it is true that he is widely respected and has many admirers and friends among “the group,” Cy is not known by the vast majority of petition signers. In fact, Cy Holley was not even at CL during the weeks I was there (Weeks 48 and 49) during which our coalition was formed and the petition developed. I have spoken personally with him maybe twice in seven years and the last time I actually saw him on the beach was two years ago. I barely know him and I resent being characterized as some zombie-like follower of Svengali.

Subsequently, Cy Holley contacted members of the coalition and urged a revision of the petition…and a rather constructive one at that. As a result of his participation, our petition has been revised to recall up to six (6) Board Members. That fact was not reported either. And, as of this writing, Mr. Schepps has not responded to the petition and has ignored repeated requests to correct any misinformation he and his surrogates are disseminating.


MYTH #2: The “group” (better known as the Coalition of Concerned Costa Linda Members), is seeking to remove board members simply because they voted for the maintenance fee.

Not True! Mr. Schepps, Mr. Berger and Mr. Walker have been harping on this oversimplification since day one of this controversy. They still don’t seem to understand that people are seeking to remove them, not because they voted for the increase, but because their lack of action and communication with members triggered a loss of confidence in their stewardship…because they did not hold management accountable for reining in spending at the first signs of the shortfall or for developing a plan to address the deficit; nor did they present plans to the members or discuss the problem with us before imposing the fee. It should be duly noted that these “failures” happened after Cy Holley’s watch and during the first five months of Schepps’ leadership. Where was he? Through its surrogate, General Manager Joy Viapree, at weekly GM meetings (and after our petition was presented), the board apologized for this failing (not in writing, mind you) and promised to do better. But as you, Mr. Gatecliff, have pointed out, running CLBR is big business. This is not the Boy Scouts. “I’m sorry, we’ll do better,” doesn’t cut it. It’s a matter of too little, too late. Meanwhile, to date, some eight months since the deficit hit $500,000 (it was at more than $800,000 in late fall) the members have not been presented with any plan, other than a signaling that there will be annual maintenance fee increases in the neighborhood of 5%.





MYTH #3: Supporting removal of Board Members means supporting a dictatorship

Nonsense. In fact, supporting removal of the board members in question means supporting the end of what TRULY feels like a real “dictatorship.” Just ask the dozens of people who cannot get their comments posted on their own association’s website bulletin board.

In fact, CL management should by now be requesting submission of resumes for anyone who wishes to be considered for the Board at the June 20th Annual Members meeting. Our rules call for all potential candidates to submit their one page resume by January 31st. That has not been done, but the Coalition will submit their own candidates by January 31st for consideration at the February 28th Board meeting. We expect them to be selected and included in the Convocation. In any case, we are following the Articles of the Association.


MYTH #4: Two of the so-called “sore-loser” minority board members could not attend the October meeting (during which the maintenance fees were raised), so they attempted to cancel the fee raise at a special meeting called in November.

This distortion is particularly galling. Cy Holley, who was not permitted by his doctor to travel to the Dominican Republic, and Susan DeRoos, whose husband had suffered a massive stroke just weeks before, asked to participate in the October board meeting by teleconference — a routine way of doing business in an age of advanced telecommunication — and even offered to pay for the calls out of their own pockets. Under the rules of our association, it is their right to participate via teleconference. Mr. Schepps refused to allow their participation. Yet in all letters and explanations of those meetings, he continues to neglect to report this fact…and now his surrogates are doing the same. Mr. Gatecliff, if Mr. Schepps is the fine, upstanding democratic fellow that you say he is, why would he try to deny participation in a board meeting of two duly-elected board members?

Messrs. Schepps, Berger, Walker — and their surrogates Mr. Gatecliff and Mr. Carlin -- keep falsely claiming that Mr. Holley, Mrs. DeRoos, and Mr. Measel were dead set against any Maintenance Fee increase.

My understanding is that, at the special Board Meeting on November 27th, Mr. Holley’s, Mrs. DeRoos’, and Mr. Gale Measel’s proposal was to rescind the increase in maintenance fees until our February Meeting and require Management to justify any increase beyond then, during a full presentation at the February Board Meeting.

In addition, it was Mr. Holley’s expectation that Maintenance fees would not increase until Fiscal Year 2008, by which time the Board could give adequate notice to our members via the Convocation, which would be sent out to all members following the February meeting.

Of course, if Chairman Schepps and his cohorts would simply produce the minutes from the October and November board meetings, we would at least have the official decisions of the Board to review. Again, I ask, if Mr. Schepps, Berger and Walker’s version is the truth, why withhold the minutes of our Association’s Board Meetings from the members?


MYTH #5: Costa Linda is thriving under Mr. Schepps’ management.

As for your contention that the resort is doing well under this chairman, many would disagree with you. It is ironic that the shortfall has been blamed in part on the lack of sales of unsold units. Just about everyone has a story about how the sales office is hardly ever staffed. I met a couple on the way home on the plane who had attempted on numerous occasions during week 49 to find someone to sell them an additional week. This goes on constantly, is reported constantly and yet, nothing is done to change it.

Numerous people have commented on how the property is no longer well-kept: you can walk by the same garbage in the Garden of Eden and see it there weeks later; you can report it until you are blue in the face but after an initial response, it happens all over again; the elevators are dirty and shabby; the maintenance supervisor has no key for the parts inventory room, so routine repairs sometimes take several days while he hunts down the person who might have the keys.

Good staff have quit…we lost Marcel and Enrique this past month. And as for your contention that most of the staff say they are happy with the new regime — let me tell you that literally dozens of members report that conversations with staff at all levels and areas or responsibility reflect that nothing could be further from the truth. Where is the management oversight that has served us so well in the past?

In fact employees have been told not to speak with certain Board Members and members in general. In addition, I have learned that Mr.Schepps and Management are planning on sending a letter to all members (at the cost of the members) claiming how well everything is running.



MYTH #6: The recall effort is about the power of one individual and not the members.

This, above all of Mr. Gatecliff’s claims, is the most absurd. It does not pass the reasonable person standard. We are not stupid. We would not blindly seek removal of board members to satisfy one person’s personal agenda. You are comically overestimating Mr. Holley’s power (Next, you’ll have him passing out Kool-Aid!) and tragically underestimating the members’ intelligence. Certainly board members can think for themselves and choose whom they want to lead them.

Let me repeat something I recently wrote to a member which underscores what the recall effort is really all about.: You can argue about who did what under the previous or current chairman, but you cannot deny that under the leadership of the current chairman, the scope and magnitude of attempts to stifle even the mildest disagreement with the current board majority is unprecedented and utterly disgraceful...and, more importantly, emblematic of the kind of exceedingly poor judgment we have been subjected to by these people.

I frankly don’t see how anyone can argue against the fact that, whether the issue is censorship, lack of management oversight, failure to rein in spending in the face of a growing fiscal shortfall, failure to communicate with members — except for unseemly, personal attacks on their colleagues — or just common decency in being direct and honest with the CL owners, the current board majority has done a terrible job and deserves to be replaced.

Let me say also, that Mr.de L’Isle, Mr. Dupersoy and Mr. Arends have risen quite a bit in my estimation for not signing the most inappropriate, unprofessional and undignified letter to the members I have ever had the displeasure of reading from their three colleagues on the board: Mr. Schepps, Mr. Berger and Mr. Walker. What they and you, Mr. Gatecliff, fail to understand is that in attempting to trash another colleague’s reputation, you have only managed to tarnish your own.

I would hope, that in the interest of fairness, you will do the right thing and use your obvious influence with the current Chairman to get him to reverse his policy of not allowing any messages that he doesn’t like or agree with to be posted on the CL Bulletin Board. In fact, your message has been posted alongside Mr. Carlin’s (both of which echo support for Mr. Schepps and the personal attacks on Cy Holley) — and mine has not yet been posted, I can assure you it will only serve to underscore who is the real “dictator” in this saga. I must admit that I hold no illusions about the possibility of your comments and mine running alongside one another on the CL Bulletin Board. But, if Mr. Schepps’ management surrogates do not post mine immediately, I assure you, all our commentaries will get wide distribution.

I join you in wishing members of Costa Linda a happy healthy, new year. May the year 2007 be a year in which we restore our association to one that is financially secure, well-managed and member-driven.

Sincerely,

Linda Rapaport
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #2  
Old Monday, January 8th, 2007, 10:04 PM
leftyjy's Avatar
leftyjy leftyjy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: April 14th, 2006
Posts: 57
leftyjy is on a distinguished road
Angry Re: Response To Schepps" Surrogates From Concerned Costa Linda Members

Hello, Linda, and Hello, to all others reading these postings. I can't emphasize strongly enough how fearful I am of losing my wonderful timeshares at CLBR because of several persons mis-direction. Who are these persons? With all the very concise and well-versed letters and postings, it's hard to decide which way to face when crossing "no-man's land". I recently posted several, what I thought were diligent, important, and well-posed questions on Norm Michael's 'informal CLBR BB'. I don't know how many nor who has signed off on any proposition. I haven't and I won't until my several questions have been answered. I also have 6 friends out there who visit with me during weeks 21 and 22 and I won't contact them until I have answers. No threat! It's just my way of saying I won't play until I understand the rules. Further, until someone out there can present some logic to this FIASCO I won't blindly side with any faction. I must know "What happens if"....! After you read my questions I hope you'll see that I'm doubtful of what a bunch of people can do from many hundreds of miles away while everyone is trying to lure all those in "No-man's land" to their way of thinking. Certainly, I can afford to pay the extra money! Certainly, I don't like that notion that fees will increase every year! But, in this day and age of spiraling costs of living and doing business, I guess it's to be expected. Now..... in the CLBR BB Keith Walker is talking about $500k being stolen! My God! Where did this bombshell come from? Please, someone who is not tarnished in all this crap tell me that this is some hype from some agitator trying to push the "No-Man's Land" folks over the edge. I'm worried and I do not see any solution in sight! Please read my questions in the other BB. Thanx. John Y.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #3  
Old Monday, January 8th, 2007, 10:12 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: Response To Schepps" Surrogates From Concerned Costa Linda Members

john, when you get a chance, can you copy and paste your questions on this board. those of us who are lazy would like to read them too, lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftyjy View Post
Hello, Linda, and Hello, to all others reading these postings. I can't emphasize strongly enough how fearful I am of losing my wonderful timeshares at CLBR because of several persons mis-direction. Who are these persons? With all the very concise and well-versed letters and postings, it's hard to decide which way to face when crossing "no-man's land". I recently posted several, what I thought were diligent, important, and well-posed questions on Norm Michael's 'informal CLBR BB'. I don't know how many nor who has signed off on any proposition. I haven't and I won't until my several questions have been answered. I also have 6 friends out there who visit with me during weeks 21 and 22 and I won't contact them until I have answers. No threat! It's just my way of saying I won't play until I understand the rules. Further, until someone out there can present some logic to this FIASCO I won't blindly side with any faction. I must know "What happens if"....! After you read my questions I hope you'll see that I'm doubtful of what a bunch of people can do from many hundreds of miles away while everyone is trying to lure all those in "No-man's land" to their way of thinking. Certainly, I can afford to pay the extra money! Certainly, I don't like that notion that fees will increase every year! But, in this day and age of spiraling costs of living and doing business, I guess it's to be expected. Now..... in the CLBR BB Keith Walker is talking about $500k being stolen! My God! Where did this bombshell come from? Please, someone who is not tarnished in all this crap tell me that this is some hype from some agitator trying to push the "No-Man's Land" folks over the edge. I'm worried and I do not see any solution in sight! Please read my questions in the other BB. Thanx. John Y.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #4  
Old Tuesday, January 9th, 2007, 10:19 AM
Margaret's Avatar
Margaret Margaret is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 19th, 2004
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 28
Margaret is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Response To Schepps" Surrogates From Concerned Costa Linda Members

Thank you, Linda, for your pointing out other "facts" than in Chuck G's msg. I had felt he was sincere, but your notes do seem to express what many (700!?) owners have actually experienced during their vacation time in recent months -- an obvious downhill turn even in the public areas of CLBR.


["...Let me repeat something I recently wrote to a member which underscores what the recall effort is really all about.: You can argue about who did what under the previous or current chairman, but you cannot deny that under the leadership of the current chairman, the scope and magnitude of attempts to stifle even the mildest disagreement with the current board majority is unprecedented and utterly disgraceful...and, more importantly, emblematic of the kind of exceedingly poor judgment we have been subjected to by these people.

"I frankly don’t see how anyone can argue against the fact that, whether the issue is censorship, lack of management oversight, failure to rein in spending in the face of a growing fiscal shortfall, failure to communicate with members — except for unseemly, personal attacks on their colleagues — or just common decency in being direct and honest with the CL owners, the current board majority has done a terrible job and deserves to be replaced."]

Ohhhh boy! I feel as John Y does, too.

Maggie Ann
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #5  
Old Wednesday, January 10th, 2007, 11:57 PM
Linda R Linda R is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 2nd, 2007
Posts: 29
Linda R is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Response To Schepps" Surrogates From Concerned Costa Linda Members

This is a response to recent postings from Maggie Ann:
Thanks for your comments. I have heard directly from Mr. Gatecliff and I have to say that -- based on his comments to me and his letter to CL members on the censored CLbb -- he apparently can not disagree with someone without resorting to personal attacks or digs disguised by insincere expressions of respect and good wishes (told me that he hopes I overcome my "rage" because it isn't healthy for me...his concern for my health is touching, but I've never laid eyes on the man and feel it would have been a far more productive dialogue if he countered my points with facts rather than condescending personal remarks).

So much for sincerity.

More importantly, though, I believe CLBR will be just fine in the long run. No need for a sinking feeling in the stomach. This is our resort and it is up to us to keep it the wonderful place it is. We are solvent. Things are not so far gone that we have to wring hands...and to my way of thinking, the worst case scenario is that the current board members with wrongheaded ideas, a failed record of holding management accountable and poor leadership skills will just take longer to remove. This turmoil has brought me in contact with a number of terrific, energetic and committed people...who have brought their skills from their work or former work worlds -- whether it be fiscal, computer, communications, legal or CL bylaws and articles expertise -- to this effort in organizing a coalition of members and informing them of the facts. I bold that word because I and the others in this group will not be party to an effort that isn't open and truthful.

There are many other people who are helping just by contacting everyone they know. You can also help CL and the effort by calling or e-mailing every CL member you know and urging them to sign their ballot and proxy for the special meeting and fax it to Greg Wallace 781 466-8887 before February 16. Or if they haven't received it, give them his e-mail address gwallace@thescannerguys.com.

Linda R





Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #6  
Old Thursday, January 11th, 2007, 12:09 AM
Linda R Linda R is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 2nd, 2007
Posts: 29
Linda R is on a distinguished road
Thumbs up Re: Response To Schepps" Surrogates From Concerned Costa Linda Members

This is a response to John Y:

John,

Thanks for the excellent questions you posed. A number of us worked on various aspects of the answers… researching, editing, and formatting so that they can be shared with the growing list of members we are keeping informed and in the loop.

As to your question "Who are these people?", let me tell you about this coalition. I was there during the period when it was "born"... weeks 47, 48 and 49. A group of members became very upset by the way they were treated by two board members at the weekly general managers meeting. I was not at CL in week 47, but was there wks 48&49. I was told about it by about a dozen or so people among some 50 who attended this first meeting at the resort since the new maintenance fee notices had been mailed out.

Chairman Schepps was at the Resort the day before this GM meeting, but chose to leave, rather than stay and face members. He left that task to Steve Berger and Keith Walker, who by all reports, were not up to the task. Board members Berger and Walker, chair of the finance committee and finance committee member respectively, could not answer some questions and refused to answer others.( How did each of the board members vote on particular issues? Berger was quoted as saying "I'm not sure I’m allowed to give you that information" WHAT???? Who were you elected to serve if not the members who most certainly have the right to that info!). Both Walker and Berger, when asked for information like, "How much is the total budget? How much did all the new chairs on the Lanais cost? How much did replacing all the new toilets and the new lock system that doesn't work half the time cost? How much of the budget is based on the revenue from unsold units?? The answers were consistently "Don't know." ARE YOU SERIOUS???. The finance committee, which oversees spending at CL does not know the answers to these questions???

Then, when someone questioned why they had reported in the maintenance fee letter that the vote to raise fees was unanimous when Board member Measel has said he did not vote for it...Berger shouted out that "Gale Measel is a g-damned liar". Nice, professional behavior for a CL board member...

Board member and former Chairman Cy Holley was also there. At a member's request, he spoke out about the budget problems, answering many of the questions that Berger and Walker couldn't or wouldn't. You could hear a pin drop and most people report that he was an immediate calming influence and welcome speaker. He was clear, concise, rational and candid. The contrast in content and demeanor was glaring. It was after this meeting that the coalition was born and-- many people believe—that the "Blame it all on Cy" diversion was hatched by the other side.

After that meeting, members who had never spoken before exchanged unit numbers and e-mail addresses. They started having impromptu meetings at the beach.

It was probably at week 48's meeting that things reached the boiling point. Some of the same people who attended the previous week’s meeting were still at CL and at that meeting, as I was. Board member Susan DeRoos was in attendance, but the meeting was run by Joy Viapre. Joy apologized on behalf of the board for "the way the maintenance fee increase was handled" poor communication, etc.(It wasn't until week 49's meeting that she actually apologized for both the board and management's failure to rein in spending at the first sign of a shortfall...(which was February) and said they definitely should have recommended postponements of discretionary spending and places to cut spending by June when the deficit had grown to more than $500,000).

Unfortunately, those words of apology and acknowledgement of screwing-up were never put in writing by Chairman Schepps and the board; in fact, the only message put out to the members on the deficit -- besides the one which came with maintenance fee notice --was the one posted on the CLBR web site. Instead of apologies, acknowledgements or detailed financial information that might help to explain this budget fiasco, the letter --- signed by Schepps, Berger and Walker. – was mostly a personal attack against Cy Holley, blaming him for just about everything from the budget to global warming.

Joy had few answers to questions from some 60 people at the week 48 meeting, and many of the answers served to fuel the groups’ anger. When asked why Cy Holley's posting was dropped from CL'sbb (and why mine complaining about it was not posted).She actually said that CL would only tolerate "constructive" comments on the bb (sure...like Mr. Schepps’. Bergers’ and Walkers’ letter and another letter by Mr. Gatecliff all attacking Cy Holley and lacking any reasonable explanation for how this deficit really occurred.). As the censorship increased, so did the resentment of the members at the resort

A group of members, my husband and I among them, composed the original propositions after studying CLBR Association by-laws and articles. Greg Wallace and I walked the beach for one hour in the am. and one in the p.m. Despite its strong remedy, the document was a hot commodity; people could not sign it fast enough. In only two hours on two days of week 48, we collected signatures reflecting some 100 unit/shares. One of our major goals, besides collecting signatures has been to collect owners’ e-mail addresses to create a CL listserve. We have had members send us 40, 50 and nearly 100 addresses at a time of their CL friends. Rocky Couch was particularly helpful with this project. We collected some 65 addresses during week 48 and another 60 during week 49. Dave Levesque, Greg and I presented a petition for positive change at CL to Joy at the end of week 48’s GM meeting with 100 unit/share signatures. Another 100 signatures were presented to Joy a week later.

The board has never acknowledged the petition to put up propositions for a vote to the general membership and is not expected to comply with our association rules and do so. Under our rules, just a single member is needed to compel the board to put props up for a vote, as long as the request is submitted six months before the June 20 annual members meeting. We collected more than 200 before the deadline and submitted them on Dec. 5 and Dec.13 to Joy. Imagine the gall of defying the request of more than 200 owner/votes. Since we know they do not intend to honor the request, we are now collecting signatures on ballots and proxies to prompt a special meeting to remove those board members who have been unresponsive and irresponsible, and to compel the board to provide quarterly financial statements and timely board meeting minutes to the members.

During week 49 I worked with another member, Jeanne Savaria, and together, we collected signatures reflecting some additional 100 unit/shares votes. As the lobby started to fill for week 49’s weekly meeting, a CLBR staffer put the notice of cancellation of the meeting on the lobby bulletin board. That poor decision on the part of management only served to fuel the crowds’ anger and boost our signature count considerably. A small group of us got in to see Joy and convinced her to reschedule the meeting for the next day. So, on a beautiful beach morning, some 60 folks sat in the Frangiapani Café for more than two hours looking for answers.

Volunteers stepped up to the plate for week 50 and we passed the baton. Juliet Pittman and Jane Senor took up the baton and collected more signatures and more e-mail addresses. However, it was during this week that Board member Berger launched the attack on Cy Holley publicly at the weekly GM meeting, which he moderated. He had polished his act from week 47, but instead of spending the majority of his time explaining the shortfall and providing real info on the budget (to this day they refuse to say what certain things cost and have not released the minutes of the Oct. and Nov. board meetings), Berger blamed just about our entire financial predicament on Holley.

Still, more signatures and e-mail addresses were collected and forwarded to Greg Wallace, who maintains our growing listserve and electronically transmits information prepared by Carol Bengis or me, with help from people like Sandy Wallace, Robin Rapaport, Charlene Levesque and many others. Each week invariably, someone volunteers to help and the baton is passed.
And so it goes. I must tell you that the battle for responsive and responsible leadership at CL has gotten uglier of late. Last week at check-in, each CL member was handed Chuck Gatecliff’s letter attacking Cy and the coalition as his puppet and a notice warning members not to sign any ballot or proxy—other than the ones sent out before the June annual meeting by CL management and the board.

On the brighter side, John, we are not some small fringe group of “rebels” shouting out to no mans land and preaching to each other in cyberspace. The coalition has obviously struck a responsive chord with CL members and has networked to the degree that we have people from all over the world and from many weeks faxing back proxies and ballots. This is not some hopeless cause. The fact is that we have a real shot at taking back our own resort. Remember that no successful board candidate has ever garnered more than 830 votes in any board election. And don’t think for one minute that the other side doesn’t know it. It’s why they have sunk to such lows in this saga.
The coalition, John Y. is made up of people like us.. you and me .. who merely want a well-run, fiscally-sound resort and a responsive board. I hope you will join us and urge others to do so.

Linda R.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #7  
Old Thursday, January 11th, 2007, 01:49 PM
Linda VH Linda VH is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24th, 2004
Posts: 122
Linda VH is on a distinguished road
I Love Aruba Re: Response To Schepps" Surrogates From Concerned Costa Linda Members

Linda, Must tell you that your response to John Y as well as your other postings are much appreciated. My husband signed the petition along with me but had some reservations. After I had him read your postings he no longer has any reservations. They better not hand me that letter when we go in Feb. (maybe the meeting will be held before then) or I'll rip it up and hand it back to them. The nerve. Linda (weeks 8, 9 and 10).
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #8  
Old Friday, January 12th, 2007, 04:16 AM
Margaret's Avatar
Margaret Margaret is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 19th, 2004
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 28
Margaret is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Response To Schepps" Surrogates From Concerned Costa Linda Members

Linda R, DITTO to LindaVH's sentiments. Your clarity helped me in making my decision, too. Now I just have to get a move on to a fax machine!

Ayo,
__________________
~ Maggie Ann ~
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #9  
Old Friday, January 12th, 2007, 09:44 PM
leftyjy's Avatar
leftyjy leftyjy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: April 14th, 2006
Posts: 57
leftyjy is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Response To Schepps" Surrogates From Concerned Costa Linda Members

Hi, Linda, I'm awed! Simply put, I did not think for a minute that an uprising of persons spread so far and wide, people who basically are without any real means of communicating with each other, work-a-day folks like me could withstand, repel and potentially derail the mishandlings of ill-equipped but powerful (by elected position) leaders. I'll sign and fax my info to Greg. I'm still waiting to hear from the four others I've e-mailed. I cannot forward their e-mail addys on to you at this time as I don't have their permission (I respect that they gave me their info in confidence). But, when I hear back from them, I will certainly forward said info. Thank you for all that you've done..... you, and Greg, Carol, I'm so confused that I can't remember who are the 'good guys' and who are the 'baddies' any more. That you would write such long and detailed, and ESPECIALLY well versed dialog to ME...... one person...... your passion is admirable. Please contact me if I can help. I don't know what I can do. I'm at CLBR for weeks 21 and 22 (and one night in week 20). I own a week 14 unit but usually rent it out to help defray maintenance costs for the others. I live and work fairly close to GREG, thus, I could, perhaps, be of some help licking and sticking envelopes or such mundane tasks for the cause. Please keep me informed. All the best. John & Judy Y.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #10  
Old Friday, January 12th, 2007, 09:45 PM
GregW GregW is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 11th, 2006
Posts: 17
GregW is on a distinguished road
Default Gatcliff's Letter Handed Out to Members

Last week Chuck Gatcliff's cheap shot letter was in the welcome packet as members arrived. Some members were left messages that they had an important message at the front desk, which was Chuck's letter.

Yesterday at the Managers Meeting when asked who authorized this action, Keith Walker said it was the Board.

Obviously we know 3 Board Members who didn't and it's hard to believe the Aruban Board Members had anything to do with it.

Joy Vaipree, Costa Linda's GM, said she under orders to do it. So, it looks like Schepps, Walker, and Berger were responsible.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #11  
Old Monday, January 22nd, 2007, 12:24 AM
phoebe phoebe is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 28th, 2006
Posts: 2
phoebe is on a distinguished road
Post Re: Response To Schepps" Surrogates From Concerned Costa Linda Members

Linda R.

Thank you so much for your explanation. I have been swaying back and forth and back and forth and sitting on the fence but your post has convinced me to sign the request for an Extraordinary General Meeting. One other major reason that I will now sign it and fax it to Greg Wallace is the censoring and lack of response from the present Board.

Gail Fairman - Weeks 8 and 9
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #12  
Old Monday, January 22nd, 2007, 12:21 PM
Margaret's Avatar
Margaret Margaret is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 19th, 2004
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 28
Margaret is on a distinguished road
One Happy Island Re: Response To Schepps" Surrogates From Concerned Costa Linda Members

Just an FYI -- on Jan. 4, I originally had posted a reply to Chuck Gatecliff's "Comments from a Retired Board Member" on CLBR's Members' Forum, which was "approved" possibly/probably because I said I was glad to read his comments as another point of view. A few days ago I edited my post, taking out all my comments except what I left below and adding the last two paragraphs, and THAT one also was posted. I was surprised and pleased to see it, but I guess it was innocuous enough. Has there been a thaw? Will there be a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel do you think? Can we hope for more open and professional communication w/mgmt and Board?
_____________________________________________________
"Jan. 20, 2007

"...In order to inspire confidence for us owners/members of CLBR, a plan should be devised to dissuade problems in the future. In my opinion, TIMELY AND ROUTINE COMMUNICATION AMONG FINANCE, MANAGEMENT, CHAIRMAN, BOARD, AND THE OWNERS IS A CURRENT CRITICAL MATTER, and one vehicle should be our own CLBR Members Forum, which, directly quoted, states that:

'We, the Management, have created this website for the betterment of the Costa Linda Beach Resort and it's members, including to help keep members up to date with resort information....
'Slander, profanity, libel or insults will not be permitted on the CLBR website or it's [its] 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.'

For me, a question still remains, tho: How can we ensure KNOWLEDGE and EXECUTION OF OWNERS’ OPINIONS and SUGGESTIONS, especially if the "Ask Management" forum means "you may not get an answer"?

(Will this constructive opinion be posted for the betterment of the Costa Linda Beach Resort and it's members, This really bothers me!)"
______________________________________________________
__________________
~ Maggie Ann ~
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #13  
Old Monday, January 22nd, 2007, 12:23 PM
Linda R Linda R is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 2nd, 2007
Posts: 29
Linda R is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Response To Schepps" Surrogates From Concerned Costa Linda Members

Thanks, Phoebe(Gail) for your remarks. The censorship is just the tip of the iceberg. I never would have believed some of the tactics that are being employed by this CL board leadership to disenfranchise owner/members and to deny them a say in how their own resort is run.
In a letter to members filled with untruths and aimed at stopping our efforts, he actually refers to us as "dissidents." Very Kremlin-like word, don't you think?

This board chairman and his supporters are actually spending your money on lawyers to keep you from exercising your own rights as an owner. They are looking for every legal loophole they can fiind to stop our propositions and keep their seeats on the board. As a former political consultant and communications director, I tell you I never saw anything as corrupt as this. These guys make the swiftboat brigade look like amateurs.

The members Coalition pledges to keep members informed and I hope if you have any quuestions you will not hestitate to contact me.

Linda R
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #14  
Old Monday, January 22nd, 2007, 03:16 PM
Linda R Linda R is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 2nd, 2007
Posts: 29
Linda R is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Response To Schepps" Surrogates From Concerned Costa Linda Members

Margaret,
I wish it were true that there has been a thaw. In the past week alone there have been a number of posts which have not. They pose legitmate questions and/or point out contradictions and discrepancies with what board leaders have stated and what the record reflects. By record, I mean tape recordings or minutes of board meetings.

There have been other posts asking to respond to criticisms or accusations by Schepps/Berger supporters that have not apeared. I myself have posted a response to false accusations against me by one of the board's surrogates, and have been denied the opportunity to defend myself against these attacks. I'm afarid the only thing that is going to return our forum to us is to vote out the censors who are in charge.
No matter what legal manuevers the judge has up his sleeve, I am confident that we will ultimately prevail. The proxy votes and ballots are streaming in, which is very heartening.
Thanks for your efforts to set them straight. It is especially ironic they have allowed the posting of your suggestions, since they have not honored one shred of your porposal and it is obvious they don't intend to.

Linda R
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #15  
Old Tuesday, January 23rd, 2007, 10:00 PM
Margaret's Avatar
Margaret Margaret is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 19th, 2004
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 28
Margaret is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Response To Schepps" Surrogates From Concerned Costa Linda Members

Yes, Linda, it certainly does seem the reality is that the administration of "our" CLBR Members Bulletin Board will remain selective in the postings, adhering to the mandates of the Chairman of "our" Co-op Board of Directors. I also found it amazing and coincidental that Schepps managed to dig up all that stuff about ammendments, legalities, etc. (with attys' fees paid by "our" money, I presume) -- how ironic AND convenient!

All I can say is I'm very glad there is this venue for information and opinions, and THANKS for all the time and effort contributed by you and everyone involved, for the Members Coalition.

Maggie Ann (aka)
__________________
~ Maggie Ann ~
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #16  
Old Wednesday, January 24th, 2007, 12:11 AM
Linda R Linda R is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 2nd, 2007
Posts: 29
Linda R is on a distinguished road
Thumbs up Re: Response To Schepps" Surrogates From Concerned Costa Linda Members

Maggie Ann(AKAMargaret),

You took the words out of many mouths. This chairman Schepps has been insulting the intelligence of CL members ever since his first letter about the maintenance fee increase, which blamed the budget shortfall on Natalie Holloway. While you were posting your response to my comments here about censorship on our CL bb, I was posting a response on another thread to Eddie and Leftyjy about Schepps' latest stunt. Here it is and here is the Bulletin that has just been sent out to the Coalition,s listserve.

This is for Eddie and John Y and everyone who is confused by the latest stunt being pulled by Costa Linda Board Chairman Schepps, a few points to remember:

1. Schepps has been on the board for some time and has been aware of the legal situation as it applies to the amendments of our association's by-laws and articles -- amendments approved by us, the members, in 2000 and 2004. Cy Holley --- whom Schepps would blame for global warming if he could -- was trying to honor our wishes ....a pursuit which Schepps has no concept of.

2. If you believe that Schepps consulted an attorney on annual routine Costa Linda business, I have some swamp land for you in Florida. His legal fishing expedition was conducted for the sole purpose of finding a loophole to derail the member-driven effort to remove him and his supporters. And he did it at our expense and continues to spend our money to fight our proxy and ballot drive to elect responsive and responsible people to our board.

3. If the board is indeed illegal, how does an illegal board appoint itself as an interim board? By what authority? What don't they just appoint themselves Jedi Knights?

4.The articles of our association that provide for members to seek propositions and Extraordinary Members Meetings are the same in the 1999 version(old rules) as they are in the amendments of 2000 and 2004(new rules).... Verbatim. Legal Counsel has determined they are valid and Schepps knows it. He's just hoping that, in all the confusion and diversion he has created, that you won't know it.

THAT'S WHERE THE COSTA LINDA MEMBERS RELATIONS COUNCIL COMES IN. WE WILL TELL YOU THE TRUTH. WE WILL KEEP YOU INFORMED.


The most important point to remember: Whether it's a five or nine member board, whether its held at the annual June meeting or a special meeting, with our proxies, we will have a huge impact on the election.

The Bullletin below is being distributed to our listserve. You saw it here first.


URGENT BULLETIN FROM THE COALITON:
MEMBERS RELATIONS COUNCIL


OUR PROPOSITIONS AND BALLOTS ARE STILL VALID!



Our propositions and ballots are still valid! Don’t be fooled by the latest legal maneuvers of the Costa Linda Board Chairman Schepps and his supporters. In the face of a nearly $800,000 deficit –which they addressed by illegally raising our maintenance fees without our permission – Board leaders are now spending thousands of dollars of our money in legal fees to keep their seats…and to keep us from voting for policies that will restore responsible leadership to our resort.

Convoluted and confusing messages have been posted and mailed to members questioning the legality of the current number of board members and the amendments to our association by-laws and articles which we, the members, approved in 2000 and 2004. In addition, Schepps has sent out a form to all members urging those who have already signed ballots to use his form to rescind their signatures and revoke proxy vote authorizations.


Could anything be more transparent? Just who do you think Schepps is trying to force off the board with this stunt? Three guesses. What Schepps has conveniently ignored in this legal dispute is that The Coalition’s propositions and ballots are valid under the former articles as well as the amended versions which are in dispute. He and his supporters are hoping that you will be confused by all this new information and give up.


Meanwhile, we are happy to report that signed ballots are being returned to the Coalition at a steady pace. If you haven’t signed and faxed yours yet to Greg Wallace, now is the time to do so. Whether we end up voting for a five-member or nine-member board at the Annual Members Meeting in June or at a Extraordinary Members Meeting at another time, we will have a major impact on the outcome.

Let’s send Schepps, Berger and Walker a wake-up call. Don’t fall for their tactics. Assign your proxy, sign your ballots and fax them now to Greg Wallace at 781 466-8887.

Stayed tuned for more developments. In the meantime, if you need more information, send me or Greg Wallace a private message through this bb.

Linda R
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 04:47 PM.


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