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

[WannaGoNow]

You should try paying closer attention.

I'm confident in my read, but thanks anyway!

 

[Brian]

The way I see it, the request by the AG's office was made to the CFTOD. In other words, it was made to an entity which is controlled by like-minded individuals who would love to find evidence of wrong-doing by Disney. Sure, the staff responsible for responding to the request aren't necessarily DeSantis sympathizers, but they ultimately report to the board, who (I think it's fair to say) are.

For there to be no records to provide to the AG's office means one of two things, in my mind: the records were destroyed, or never existed in the first place. Either way, a violation of state law, and cause for legal proceedings against those responsible. There is simply no way there wasn't a single document, text, email, or any other record of this deal.

All roads lead to malfeasance.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Certainly. I don’t think that record was requested by the AG’s office though.

The request specified:

“Please limit your search to documents discussing an intention or goal of circumventing, avoiding, frustrating, mitigating or otherwise attempting to avoid the effects of anticipated actions by the Florida governor and the Florida Legislature.”

I have no idea how a board like Reedy Creek would work, and how items are added to an agenda for consideration, but I assume it is sort of like how a Strata works like in my condo building.

You send a request into the property manager, they add it to the agenda for next meeting / forward to Strata council. Strata debates / decides next course of action.

 

[WannaGoNow]

I'm not surprised at all there was nothing returned. If the whole point was to circumvent the governors intentions, it wouldn't be hard to draw a conclusion that he would blow his top when he got wind of this deal, so why do anything that would give him or the state evidence in possible response

The meetings were held in public. Announcements of the meetings were public. Documents were (and still are) available on the Reedy Creek website, for the public to view. The public was invited to make comments. The media covered the meetings.

 

[WannaGoNow]

The way I see it, the request by the AG's office was made to the CFTOD. In other words, it was made to an entity which is controlled by like-minded individuals who would love to find evidence of wrong-doing by Disney. Sure, the staff responsible for responding to the request aren't necessarily DeSantis sympathizers, but they ultimately report to the board, who (I think it's fair to say) are.

For there to be no records to provide to the AG's office means one of two things, in my mind: the records were destroyed, or never existed in the first place. Either way, a violation of state law, and cause for legal proceedings against those responsible. There is simply no way there wasn't a single document, text, email, or any other record of this deal.

All roads lead to malfeasance.

The deal was done in public. In fact, the developers' agreement, by law, required two public readings.

 

[the_rich]

They were looking for something showing disney communicated to the board before the public meeting. They didn't find that because, ostensibly disneys lawyers are smarter than that. They had contracts drawn up and then discussed them at a public meeting. This is just disney outsmarting them and now they are grasping at straws.

 

[mikejs78]

That seems convenient and suspicious.

I might actually make some predictions. I think there’s a very good chance that Disney’s offices are going to be raided and a small chance that Iger and others will be indicted.

On what charge?

Shouldn’t there be a record of that request?

The request is in the public record, I believe.

There is simply no way there wasn't a single document, text, email, or any other record of this deal.

But that's not what the AG asked for, he asked for documents related to an intent to circumvent the legislature to the Reedy Creek board members only.

Besides, Disney's lawyers are smart. Why is it inconceivable that they probably anticipated this, drafted the plan, proposed it formally at a board meeting where the Reedy Creek board saw it for the first time? The board was friendly to Disney, they would have passed it without any coordination.

 

[Brian]

The deal was done in public. In fact, the developers' agreement, by law, required two public readings.

I'm not suggesting the deal wasn't done in public. What I am suggesting is correspondence related to the deal is apparently nowhere to be found, which is a violation of state law. Every email and text involving a special district in Florida is public record, to the point that even I can request it as a random constituent.

I fail to believe there was absolutely zero correspondence between the then-RCID board and Disney.

 

[the_rich]

I'm not suggesting the deal wasn't done in public. What I am suggesting is correspondence related to the deal is apparently nowhere to be found, which is a violation of state law. Every email and text involving a special district in Florida is public record, to the point that even I can request it as a random constituent.

I fail to believe there was absolutely zero correspondence between the then-RCID board and Disney.

Believe what you want. Nothing was found and you better believe the ag turned every stone to find it.

 

[Stripes]

For there to be no records to provide to the AG's office means one of two things, in my mind: the records were destroyed, or never existed in the first place. Either way, a violation of state law, and cause for legal proceedings against those responsible. There is simply no way there wasn't a single document, text, email, or any other record of this deal.

I’m sure there are records pertaining to the agreements.

But the AG’s office didn‘t request all records pertaining to the agreements. They requested that the search be limited to: “…documents discussing an intention or goal of circumventing, avoiding, frustrating, mitigating or otherwise attempting to avoid the effects of anticipated actions by the Florida governor and the Florida Legislature.”

 

[the_rich]

I'm not suggesting the deal wasn't done in public. What I am suggesting is correspondence related to the deal is apparently nowhere to be found, which is a violation of state law. Every email and text involving a special district in Florida is public record, to the point that even I can request it as a random constituent.

I fail to believe there was absolutely zero correspondence between the then-RCID board and Disney.

They were looking for something where disney goes listen we need to agree to this so that the new board has no power. I wouldve been shocked if that did exist. Disney has seemed to be a few steps ahead at every turn once chapek was let go.

 

[WannaGoNow]

I'm not suggesting the deal wasn't done in public. What I am suggesting is that the records of the deal, and the deliberations leading up to it, are nowhere to be found, which is a violation of state law. Every email and text involving a special district in Florida is public record, to the point that even I can request it as a random constituent.

I fail to believe there was absolutely zero correspondence between the then-RCID board and Disney.

I fail to believe that I didn't win the lottery. Darn it, that fifty million was mine! It's rigged, I tell you, rigged!

 

[Brian]

I’m sure there are.

But the AG’s office didn‘t request all records pertaining to the agreements. They requested that the search be limited to: “…documents discussing an intention or goal of circumventing, avoiding, frustrating, mitigating or otherwise attempting to avoid the effects of anticipated actions by the Florida governor and the Florida Legislature.”

The scope of the documents requested is subject to the eye of the beholder. With a state-friendly board in place, one would think they would produce any records they could find, even if it didn't fit squarely within that definition. That's why I suspect collusion.

 

[the_rich]

The scope of the documents requested is subject to the eye of the beholder. With a state-friendly board in place, one would think they would produce any records they could find, even if it didn't fit squarely within that definition. That's why I suspect collusion.

But why would there need to be any records of this? Disney makes up a contract and presents it at the meeting. The board knew they were getting ousted and they were friendly to Disney. It seems pretty easy to believe they would pass it without having to communicate beforehand.

 

[Brian]

I fail to believe that I didn't win the lottery. Darn it, that fifty million was mine! It's rigged, I tell you, rigged!

So in your mind it went something like this:

Disney drafts a contract for the RCID board to sign away much of their authority.
A Disney lawyer shows up to the regularly scheduled RCID board meeting to present the contract.
The RCID board says "Wow! I hadn't heard about this before! What a great idea!"
RCID board schedules the requisite hearings, and approve the deal.

...all without so much as a meeting between a member of the RCID board and Disney over a cup of coffee to discuss it at any point?

 

[WannaGoNow]

They were looking for something where disney goes listen we need to agree to this so that the new board has no power. I wouldve been shocked if that did exist. Disney has seemed to be a few steps ahead at every turn once chapek was let go.

It's so funny to me that people seem to think Disney is, y'know, stupid. Or doesn't have very, very smart lawyers. And hasn't been doing business in Florida - with other hostile legislatures, this isn't the first time the legislature took a hard look at Reedy Creek - and doesn't know exactly how to keep their hands clean.

The scope of the documents requested is subject to the eye of the beholder. With a state-friendly board in place, one would think they would produce any records they could find, even if it didn't fit squarely within that definition. That's why I suspect collusion.

Well, I suspect collusion between Santa Claus and the toy industry - there's no way elves make brand name toys - but I just can't prove it...

 

[the_rich]

So in your mind it went something like this:

Disney drafts a contract for the RCID board to sign away much of their authority.
A Disney lawyer shows up to the RCID board meeting to present the contract.
The RCID board says "Wow! I hadn't heard about this before! What a great idea!"
RCID board schedules the requisite hearings, and approve the deal.

...all without so much as a meeting between RCID and Disney over a cup of coffee to discuss it at any point?

Yes. Because they knew they were gone. It didn't matter that they were giving up their authority. It was going to be gone soon anyway.

 

[scottieRoss]

The scope of the documents requested is subject to the eye of the beholder. With a state-friendly board in place, one would think they would produce any records they could find, even if it didn't fit squarely within that definition. That's why I suspect collusion.

That is not how the government works. Freedom of Information requests require a definition and if documents meet the definition they are produced. If the definition is too narrow to define what to present, then documents are not produced. So in this case, even if Disney sent RCID director and email that said "Let's revise the land use agreements at January meeting and then Second Reading in February. We need to get these changes approved by then" It would not meet the production definition and it is not given up.

 

[Stripes]

The scope of the documents requested is subject to the eye of the beholder. With a state-friendly board in place, one would think they would produce any records they could find, even if it didn't fit squarely within that definition. That's why I suspect collusion.

If they turned over every record that pertained to the agreements, then why would they be hiding Disney’s request to consider the agreements, which RCID previously admitted they received. And, conspiracy hat on, if they deleted it why would they delete such an innocuous request?

 

[the_rich]

This was all done extremely haphazardly by DeSantis. Disney just sat back and came through with a strong and measured response that has left him impotent in this fight.