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

[Isamar]

Disney Files Scathing Memos in Fed Lawsuit Blasting DeSantis’ ‘Farcical’ Excuses for ‘Unconstitutional Restructuring’ of Tax District

Attorneys for the Walt Disney Company have filed a pair of legal memoranda opposing the motions to dismiss the complaint it filed against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and the governor's appointees to the board overseeing the special taxing district on Disney property, issuing a scathing...

www.mediaite.com

 

[mikejs78]

Disney Files Scathing Memos in Fed Lawsuit Blasting DeSantis’ ‘Farcical’ Excuses for ‘Unconstitutional Restructuring’ of Tax District

Attorneys for the Walt Disney Company have filed a pair of legal memoranda opposing the motions to dismiss the complaint it filed against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and the governor's appointees to the board overseeing the special taxing district on Disney property, issuing a scathing...

www.mediaite.com

I like how Disney is phrasing this in their response to the motions to dismiss:

The injuries from elimination of its voting rights and the institution of a de facto speech-control board in turn give rise to Disney’s claim challenging the laws reorganizing the District—SB 4C and HB 9B—by replacing the landowner-elected Reedy Creek Improvement District (“RCID”) with the Governor-controlled Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (“CFTOD”)

By referring to CFTOD as a "speech-control board", it bolsters their claim that the legislation itself is unconstitutional, and that striking down the legislation is the only possible remedy...

 

[seascape]

The time has come for the Republican Legislature to pass a new bill restoring the original RCID voting power. Desantis's appointees have proven that he is unable to appoint a Board that knows how to run a tourist area.

 

[JohnD]

The time has come for the Republican Legislature to pass a new bill restoring the original RCID voting power. Desantis's appointees have proven that he is unable to appoint a Board that knows how to run a tourist area.

The 2024 Legislative Session begins in January, so who knows?

 

[flynnibus]

Given that Gleason has repeatedly made statements in those meetings that are misleading, misdirection, or outright lies, you'll excuse me for not taking his comments at state value. Data should be shown.

I'm not saying you have to believe him - I'm pointing out the case they've outlined (from the beginning no less, not in response to some journalist) to lay out their path.

So now we're going to add conspiracy charges to people as well... since they have now convinced the CFO to participate to create a procurement policy, knowing it's violation of decades of law, incorporate it into the budget proposal, strongarm all the disgruntled employees to NOT be whistleblowers, and everything was a master plan to grift less than a million dollar deal to some GOP lackey that Gilzeen alone had a few months overlap on the Ethics committee with?

That's a ton of work for a very little amount of gain.

A policy does not override a statute. From the CFTOD enabling act:

Occam razor here... you think the district staff went out of their way to write a policy (in void of one) and do so knowingly in violation of law they have been bound to for decades? Or is it... the interpretations here may not apply as strongly as some believe?

The "CFO" is not a CFTOD appointee... she's been with the district for a long long time. Your own cite contains enough exceptions to drive a semi through...

" 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"

This is only part of a larger deal for one... second.. "all on such terms and conditions as the board may deem appropriate". AKA the 'catch all' for creating exceptions.

Or do you believe the district's head of finance and procurement is a newly unleashed devil just happy to be free to ignore all the rules under the new leaders?

 

[LAKid53]

A policy does not override a statute. From the CFTOD enabling act:

A policy NEVER overrides statute. Per the state constitution and Florida Administrative Code.

 

[mikejs78]

Occam razor here... you think the district staff went out of their way to write a policy (in void of one) and do so knowingly in violation of law they have been bound to for decades? Or is it... the interpretations here may not apply as strongly as some believe?

No, I suspect it's more incompetence than anything else.

Or do you believe the district's head of finance and procurement is a newly unleashed devil just happy to be free to ignore all the rules under the new leaders?

I believe that as a district employee, the head of finance and procurement is doing what they are told to do.

 

[LAKid53]

I'm not saying you have to believe him - I'm pointing out the case they've outlined (from the beginning no less, not in response to some journalist) to lay out their path.

So now we're going to add conspiracy charges to people as well... since they have now convinced the CFO to participate to create a procurement policy, knowing it's violation of decades of law, incorporate it into the budget proposal, strongarm all the disgruntled employees to NOT be whistleblowers, and everything was a master plan to grift less than a million dollar deal to some GOP lackey that Gilzeen alone had a few months overlap on the Ethics committee with?

That's a ton of work for a very little amount of gain.


Occam razor here... you think the district staff went out of their way to write a policy (in void of one) and do so knowingly in violation of law they have been bound to for decades? Or is it... the interpretations here may not apply as strongly as some believe?

The "CFO" is not a CFTOD appointee... she's been with the district for a long long time. Your own cite contains enough exceptions to drive a semi through...

" 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"

This is only part of a larger deal for one... second.. "all on such terms and conditions as the board may deem appropriate". AKA the 'catch all' for creating exceptions.

Or do you believe the district's head of finance and procurement is a newly unleashed devil just happy to be free to ignore all the rules under the new leaders?

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.

 

[LAKid53]

I believe that as a district employee, the head of finance and procurement is doing what they are told to do.

Probably because their employment is "at the pleasure of...". People who have positions like those tend to do what they've been instructed to do.

 

[LAKid53]

That's great - how does that qualify you to counter the statements made about this particular E911 situation and it's performance and needs?

Maybe focus that experience in dissecting how the District can have a written procurement policy that directly contradicts the statue you cited? Maybe they as a municipality are different from a state agency.... Their approval and bidding requirements differ from your cited statute.


They already said this is a byproduct of their movement off the Disney Internet system. What specifics about that vs the phone network is not communicated in that detail. But it's not out of left field... considering the systems are all likely VoIP and thus the design of the IP network is inter-related.

The CFTOD is a quasi state agency that has the powers of a county government.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

Then do you believe WFTv and the cited data from the Sherriffs dept?

Pretty sure none of them have been on the ethics committee

Calls to 911 are going unanswered in Orange County. The sheriffâs office is making changes

Orange County's 911 center is failing to pick up calls in time, if at all.

www.wftv.com

 

[mikejs78]

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.

 

[flynnibus]

I believe that as a district employee, the head of finance and procurement is doing what they are told to do.

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.

 

[flynnibus]

The CFTOD is a quasi state agency that has the powers of a county government.

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

 

[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.