News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[mikejs78]

Knowingly committing crimes because she is cowering to her boss, while a licensed professional in the state, in a regulated public gov position, and an executive officer of a public municipality, and doing it only because shes following orderss? Nope… sorry not gonna buy it.

Ok will you buy that maybe she was accustomed to the law under the old Reedy Creek act, and was possibly unaware that this requirement had changed?

Original Reedy Creek Act:

The Board of Supervisors in its discretion may, but shall not be required to, let contracts for the projects of the District, either as a whole or in sections, with or without public advertising and
the receiving of bids, all on such terms and conditions as the Board of Supervisors may deem appropriate. In the event the Board of Supervisors advertises and receives bids, the Board of Supervisors shall let the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, provided, however, that the Board of Supervisors may in its discretion reject any and all bids.

CFTOD enabling legislation:

However, if the district does not use its own resources to undertake any construction work, the board of supervisors must let contracts for the projects of the district, either as a whole or in sections, with public advertising and the receiving of bids, all on such terms and conditions as the board may deem appropriate. The board of supervisors shall let the contract to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. However, the board may in its discretion reject any and all bids.

Additionally, the Reedy Creek act basically overrode all elements of FL law that conflicted with it. The CFTOD legislation contains no such provision about overriding conflicting law.

 

[lewisc]

My god, the guy accepted a PAID public position while serving as chair of the Florida Ethics Commission. In VIOLATION of Florida Statute. And then lied about getting counsel clearance. Sorry, I tend not to believe a bloody word that comes out of his mouth and few statements from the Board.

Not only that, but at another board meeting he flat out lied about the District's paying for off duty police.

Many of us don't believe a word he says.

 

[Fox&Hound]

How do we see this all ending? Are we still thinking Disney will win? Just asking because you all seem so smart and knowledgeable of these matters that I would value your opinion. Hoping for good news for Disney.

 

[EeyoreFan#24]

I’m for public safety improvements all day everyday, things can always be better. Also against illegal, immoral and unethical business practices within that same timeframe.

I think this might be one of those situations where we have both happing at the same time. It is possible, maybe not ideal, but possible.

 

[mkt]

So, I wore this shirt at the park today. Got a lot of positive comments from CMs, including at least one "bring back reedy creek" comment.

 

[flynnibus]

Ok will you buy that maybe she was accustomed to the law under the old Reedy Creek act, and was possibly unaware that this requirement had changed?

Thx! Now see there are some interesting cites! I'm too busy tonight to see those through in completion, the snipets look a bit different in their full scope (the 'construction' project requirement was bounded differently than other projects if I recall?).

But as to pointing to incompetence... we should also point out that the board hired in Prague to be independent assessors of their policies and processes too. And the head of finance, Susan Higginbotham, has also been trusted by not just Reedy Creek, but by the cities as well. And when you lookup names in the Procurement Office.. you find long histories there as well. These aren't rubes brought in by the new Governor lackeys.

So, is the problem
- Incompetence by many? Including long established RCID employees?
- collusion by many? both internal and external to the district?
- coercion of public employees and contractors by a tyrant administrator?
- or are interpretations here incomplete or inaccurate?

I certainly don't have enough concrete material yet to be pointing fingers claiming extreme violations of both ethics and state law as many have done. I wager the issue with exceptions in the procurement process is far more nuanced then is being lead to here.. and while I'm certainly not trying to claim a contract was granted totally independently of Gilzean... I also haven't seen a lock-tight argument to say they have violated the law in this matter or that their policies do... nor will I just assume since they are bad people that the details don't matter... that they are bad and that's all that matters.

The law allows for some crappy behavior. Is this just crappy behavior, or are they actually operating in a fashion in violation of the law? I'd like to understand that better than just "I can't trust the guy" arguments.

 

[mikejs78]

Thx! Now see there are some interesting cites! I'm too busy tonight to see those through in completion, the snipets look a bit different in their full scope (the 'construction' project requirement was bounded differently than other projects if I recall?).

But as to pointing to incompetence... we should also point out that the board hired in Prague to be independent assessors of their policies and processes too. And the head of finance, Susan Higginbotham, has also been trusted by not just Reedy Creek, but by the cities as well. And when you lookup names in the Procurement Office.. you find long histories there as well. These aren't rubes brought in by the new Governor lackeys.

So, is the problem
- Incompetence by many? Including long established RCID employees?
- collusion by many? both internal and external to the district?
- coercion of public employees and contractors by a tyrant administrator?
- or are interpretations here incomplete or inaccurate?

I certainly don't have enough concrete material yet to be pointing fingers claiming extreme violations of both ethics and state law as many have done. I wager the issue with exceptions in the procurement process is far more nuanced then is being lead to here.. and while I'm certainly not trying to claim a contract was granted totally independently of Gilzean... I also haven't seen a lock-tight argument to say they have violated the law in this matter or that their policies do... nor will I just assume since they are bad people that the details don't matter... that they are bad and that's all that matters.

The law allows for some crappy behavior. Is this just crappy behavior, or are they actually operating in a fashion in violation of the law? I'd like to understand that better than just "I can't trust the guy" arguments.

Setting aside for a moment the legal aspect of this - I think a case can be made that this is ethically questionable. We have two things here, one of which on its own could be more plausibly explained away, but both together lead to an appearance of cronyism at the very least.

* A no-bid contract being awarded
* That no-bid contract being awarded to an associate of Gleason / DeSantis.

 

[LAKid53]

So answer it directly? Is it part of the executive branch? I say no

There are state governmental agencies that are NOT under the authority of the executive branch. They are constitutional agencies whose head is a constitutional officer.

 

[LAKid53]

Knowingly committing crimes because she is cowering to her boss, while a licensed professional in the state, in a regulated public gov position, and an executive officer of a public municipality, and doing it only because shes following orderss? Nope… sorry not gonna buy it.

I can give you several examples of cases in which a professional, a LICENSED professional, working for a regulatory agency, "cowered" because of fear of losing their job. One was MY boss.

When your position is "serves at the pleasure of", that enters into your decision making process if what's being asked is potentially unethical or improper.

If everything was on the up and up, ethical, etc., there'd be no need for agency inspector generals, the state auditor general's office, the state inspector general, state agency whistle blower offices, compliance offices, etc.

I've witnessed some things that are outright violations of Florida law. But when the individual ordering the action is the head of the agency, who's going to challenge them?

 

[JohnD]

There are state governmental agencies that are NOT under the authority of the executive branch. They are constitutional agencies whose head is a constitutional officer.

Notably the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Office of the Attorney General, and the Department of Financial Services. In Florida, they are major agencies but whose head is separately elected statewide. They, along with the Governor, meet as the Cabinet. All other "executive agencies" whose head reports to the Governor are considered Governor's Agencies. Then, of course, are all the quasi-independent agencies (e.g. Florida Housing Finance Corporation) and the multiple special districts statewide.

 

[LAKid53]

Notably the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Office of the Attorney General, and the Department of Financial Services. In Florida, they are major agencies but whose head is separately elected statewide. They, along with the Governor, meet as the Cabinet. All other "executive agencies" whose head reports to the Governor are considered Governor's Agencies. Then, of course, are all the quasi-independent agencies (e.g. Florida Housing Finance Corporation) and the multiple special districts statewide.

Exactly. The water management districts, while separate government taxing authorities, have dotted line reporting to DEP.

 

[flynnibus]

There are state governmental agencies that are NOT under the authority of the executive branch.

I'm aware - and my point being is the cite shared before was defined as who it applied to, which didn't seem to map to this kind of gov entity that the district was. So is there other laws that bind this kind of entities' fiscal actions.

 

[Goofnut1980]

Keep me honest and someone may have commented on this. But I thought I heard that Ronnie just created a copy of Reedy Creek with Epic Universe but the only people on the board for it are Hilton and Universal employees.. NO oversight appointed by Ronnie folks. If that is true, how is that even possible.

 

[Nevermore525]

Keep me honest and someone may have commented on this. But I thought I heard that Ronnie just created a copy of Reedy Creek with Epic Universe but the only people on the board for it are Hilton and Universal employees.. NO oversight appointed by Ronnie folks. If that is true, how is that even possible.

It was Orange County that created the district for EPIC not the State. It’s still a district that can issue bonds for municipal services that is essentially run by a private company.

Though one of the thoughts early on was if Reedy Creek was officially dissolved that Orange and Osceola would possibly allow the creation of some sort of successor districts that would serve similar functions as Reedy Creek.

The debt issue is why the state had to about face and convert it to this new district that thus far has shown to be mostly inept at their basic job requirements.

 

[LAKid53]

It was Orange County that created the district for EPIC not the State. It’s still a district that can issue bonds for municipal services that is essentially run by a private company.

Though one of the thoughts early on was if Reedy Creek was officially dissolved that Orange and Osceola would possibly allow the creation of some sort of successor districts that would serve similar functions as Reedy Creek.

The debt issue is why the state had to about face and convert it to this new district that thus far has shown to be mostly inept at their basic job requirements.

Correct. The state isn't the only entity that can create a special district.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Keep me honest and someone may have commented on this. But I thought I heard that Ronnie just created a copy of Reedy Creek with Epic Universe but the only people on the board for it are Hilton and Universal employees.. NO oversight appointed by Ronnie folks. If that is true, how is that even possible.

Orange County created a community development district (CDD), the most basic, common type of special district in Florida. Such districts do not have the full scope of powers of Reedy Creek Improvement District or the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District.

Though one of the thoughts early on was if Reedy Creek was officially dissolved that Orange and Osceola would possibly allow the creation of some sort of successor districts that would serve similar functions as Reedy Creek.

County officials quickly noted that they could not create districts that included the core areas of Walt Disney World. Counties can only organize districts in unincorporated areas. Most of Walt Disney World is within the incorporated municipalities of Bay Lake or Lake Buena Vista.

 

[Lilofan]

Keep me honest and someone may have commented on this. But I thought I heard that Ronnie just created a copy of Reedy Creek with Epic Universe but the only people on the board for it are Hilton and Universal employees.. NO oversight appointed by Ronnie folks. If that is true, how is that even possible.

Nov 2026 can't come soon enough.

 

[tissandtully]

Nov 2026 can't come soon enough.

Oh yeah, can't wait till the R choice is.. checks notes.. Matt Gaetz... we're doomed

 

[mkt]

Disney warns that if DeSantis wins lawsuit, others will be punished for 'disfavored' views

Disney claims its free speech rights were violated by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and is fighting him in federal court.

apnews.com

Disney warns that if DeSantis wins lawsuit, others will be punished for ‘disfavored’ views​

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — If Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wins a federal lawsuit in which Disney claims its free speech rights were violated by the Republican leader, the company won’t be the last entity to be punished over supporting a “disfavored viewpoint,” Disney said in court papers on Monday.

The First Amendment protects the right of free speech even if it goes against government powers, Disney said in court documents asking a judge to reject DeSantis’ motion to dismiss the entertainment giant’s First Amendment lawsuit in Tallahassee.

The Disney lawsuit says DeSantis unconstitutionally revamped and took over Walt Disney World’s governing district in retaliation after Disney publicly opposed a state law banning classroom lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity in early grades. The law was championed by DeSantis, who currently is running for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.

Before the takeover by DeSantis appointees earlier this year, the district had been controlled by Disney supporters during its five-decades existence running municipal services for Disney World’s 25,000 acres (10,117 hectares), performing such functions as road repairs and waste collection.

“If the line is not drawn here, there is no line at all,” Disney said Monday. “The retaliation against Disney for crossing the Governor’s ‘line’ was swift and severe: for the explicitly-stated purpose of punishing Disney for its comments, the State immediately stripped Disney of its voting rights in the governing body that oversees Disney’s use of its own private property.”

DeSantis and other defendants, including a state agency and the DeSantis appointees on the board of the revamped district — now called the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District — say the First Amendment lawsuit is meritless and that they are immune from liability.

Disney is also battling the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District in state court in Orlando.

Before control of the district changed hands from Disney allies to DeSantis appointees, the Disney supporters on its board signed agreements with Disney shifting control over design and construction at Disney World to the company and prohibiting the district from using the likeness of Disney characters or other intellectual property without Disney’s permission. The new DeSantis appointees claimed the “eleventh-hour deals” neutered their powers, and the district sued the company in state court to have the contracts voided.

Disney has filed counterclaims which include asking the state court to declare the agreements valid and enforceable.

 

[DCBaker]

The Orlando Sentinel reports the 911 network contract with Figgers Communication has been canceled.

"Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Disney oversight district revealed Tuesday it had canceled a contract with a politically connected telecommunications entrepreneur’s company as scrutiny mounted over its decision not to open the project to competitive bids.

Earlier this month, the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District authorized a $242,500 no-bid contract with Figgers Communication to help update its 911 network.

That company’s founder, Freddie Figgers, briefly served with Disney district administrator Glen Gilzean on the Florida Commission on Ethics. Both were appointed to the ethics board by DeSantis.

District officials said they would open the contract to bids at Figgers’ request and defended their rationale for wanting to expedite the project. WFTV first reported on the no-bid deal, putting a spotlight on the district’s decision to waive competitive bidding.

“They [Figgers Communication] do not wish to continue under the current atmosphere and wish to participate in a bidding process instead,” Matthew Oberly, the district’s director of external affairs, said Tuesday. “Which is unfortunate as now we will have to start over.”

In a letter to the district on Monday, Figgers requested an open bidding process to “err on the side of caution” and ensure the “best value” for taxpayers.

“We welcome the opportunity for an open bidding process and are confident that it will reveal that our proposal to implement the 911 wireless and VOIP emergency services was very reasonable, with no intention of taking advantage of the District,” Figgers wrote in the letter.

District officials say the contract is critical to fixing an issue with 911 calls going unanswered, and Figgers Communication was able to meet the compressed 120-day timeline."

Full article below.

Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Disney oversight district revealed Tuesday it had canceled a contract with a politically connected telecommunications entrepreneur’s company as scrutiny mounted over its decision not to open the project to competitive bids.

Earlier this month, the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District authorized a $242,500 no-bid contract with Figgers Communication to help update its 911 network.

That company’s founder, Freddie Figgers, briefly served with Disney district administrator Glen Gilzean on the Florida Commission on Ethics. Both were appointed to the ethics board by DeSantis.

District officials said they would open the contract to bids at Figgers’ request and defended their rationale for wanting to expedite the project. WFTV first reported on the no-bid deal, putting a spotlight on the district’s decision to waive competitive bidding.

“They [Figgers Communication] do not wish to continue under the current atmosphere and wish to participate in a bidding process instead,” Matthew Oberly, the district’s director of external affairs, said Tuesday. “Which is unfortunate as now we will have to start over.”

In a letter to the district on Monday, Figgers requested an open bidding process to “err on the side of caution” and ensure the “best value” for taxpayers.

“We welcome the opportunity for an open bidding process and are confident that it will reveal that our proposal to implement the 911 wireless and VOIP emergency services was very reasonable, with no intention of taking advantage of the District,” Figgers wrote in the letter.

District officials say the contract is critical to fixing an issue with 911 calls going unanswered, and Figgers Communication was able to meet the compressed 120-day timeline.

Oberly defended the contract in an interview before the district’s decision to cancel the deal.

“It follows all of the procurement guidelines,” he said. “It was a critical urgent need.”

The contract met three bidding exceptions in the district’s purchasing policy for urgent operational needs, wireless networks, and proprietary software, he said.

But Ben Wilcox, research director at Integrity Florida, said the deal still raised questions about whether favoritism played a role in the selection process. Bidding requirements should only be waived if a compelling reason exists, he said.

“It’s always better to have a bidding process,” Wilcox said. “I don’t know if this is the only company that could provide these services. You can’t find that out unless you put it out there for a competitive bidding process.”

When the state took over the district, DeSantis vowed to end “no-bid procurements” in the Disney district. A DeSantis spokesman did not respond to a request for comment on the 911 no-bid deal.

The contract was made final on Oct. 12. It is part of a $1 million project to enable wireless and voice-over-internet-protocol calls to be routed directly to the district’s 911 communications center.

Figgers Communication was hired to assist with “consulting, negotiating and requesting approval from state and federal regulators on behalf of the district,” according to the contract. The scope of work also included designing an “efficient call flow plan” that will enhance the district’s 911 network and eliminate routing through Orange County.

A two-person consulting team was to be paid $485 an hour for an expected 500 hours of work with a total price tag of $242,500, according to the contract.

District officials wanted to move quickly because of a WFTV report in August that revealed Orange County’s 911 center was failing to pick up calls in time and missing state benchmarks, Oberly said.

Internal documents obtained by WFTV showed dispatchers picked up 80.5% of calls within 10 seconds in June, short of the 90% required by state guidelines. The 911 center is operated by the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, which also has a contract to provide law enforcement services for Disney properties. The district’s Reedy Creek Fire Department handles fire protection and emergency medical services.

Gilzean was not involved in awarding the contract to Figgers Communication, and the purchasing department took the lead, Oberly said.

But an Aug. 4 internal email obtained by the Orlando Sentinel shows that Paula Hoisington, Gilzean’s chief of staff, introduced Figgers to Tiffany Kimball, the district’s purchasing officer.

“Tiffany please meet Freddie Figgers, Chief Executive Officer, Figgers Communication Inc. Tiffany, per our conversation please reach out to Freddy to discuss information needed for contracting,” Hosington wrote in the email.

Asked by the Orlando Sentinel for a list of 911-related projects completed by Figgers Communication in the past, the district and company officials did not provide one. Company officials say they are well-qualified to handle the job.

“Our experience includes managing wireless networks and developing software and other related technologies. …This initiative falls squarely within the scope of telecommunications network and software technologies,” said Michael Rahman, chief intellectual property officer for Figgers Communication. “Given our experience in these areas, we are well-equipped to contribute our expertise to ensure the success of this project.

Figgers, 34, has made national headlines for his improbable rise in the tech and telecommunications world. He was abandoned at birth next to a dumpster and grew up in Quincy, a small town near Tallahassee, according to a profile by the BBC.

At 21, Figgers was the youngest person to acquire a license from the Federal Communications Commission, NBC News reported. His company, Figgers Communication, was the country’s only Black-owned telecommunications company in America as of 2020, according to the report.

DeSantis appointed Figgers to serve on the Florida Commission on Ethics on July 27. Less than a month later on Aug. 22, Gilzean resigned as chairman of that panel.

Gilzean stepped aside after it was revealed that he was in violation of a state law that prohibits ethics commissioners from holding “public employment.”

DeSantis’ Disney district hired Gilzean in May to serve in the $400,000-a-year administrator post.

As scrutiny mounts, DeSantis’ Disney district cancels no-bid 911 contract

Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Disney oversight district canceled a contract Tuesday with a politically connected telecommunications entrepreneur’s company as scrutiny mounted over its decision not to op…

www.orlandosentinel.com