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

[Brian]

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?

My theory, which is by no means anything more than a hunch, is that the records were destroyed prior to the CFTOD board being seated. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Stripes]

...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?

…that would be illegal if it was done in private.

 

[Stripes]

My theory, which is by no means anything more than a hunch, is that the records were destroyed prior to the CFTOD board being seated. I hope I'm wrong.

Again, why would they destroy something when they stated in public and in documents that it existed?

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

I think there is a third option, in that no documents meets the specific, rather loaded, criteria of the request. But would the Sentinel have just repeated that wording?

 

[Brian]

…that would be illegal if it was done in private.

Agreed. I'm just trying to make a point that there had to have been some form of communication between the then-RCID board and Disney to make this deal happen.

 

[WannaGoNow]

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 or members of the RCID board and Disney over a cup of coffee to discuss it at any point?

Why don't you try reading the Reedy Creek Board of Supervisors packet of materials for the 2/8/23 meeting first 2-8-23 BOS Package 03/06/23 9:51 am Download

 

[WannaGoNow]

Agreed. I'm just trying to make a point that there had to have been some form of communication between the then-RCID board and Disney to make this deal happen.

Outside of official channels? No. There does not.

 

[the_rich]

Agreed. I'm just trying to make a point that there had to have been some form of communication between the then-RCID board and Disney to make this deal happen.

Why? They could have said, listen we want to redo these agreements. They do it all publicly and above the board. There would be no need to anything secretly. The governor just wasn't paying attention.

 

[Chi84]

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?

There would have been no need for any communication. The board at that time was well aware of the governor’s intention to dissolve the district and when that was not feasible to simply replace the board.

Why would anyone on the old board have objected to signing the contracts? To their credit, no one was dumb enough to blurt something out. They left that bit of entertainment to the new board.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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

The attorney general only made a public records request. That is barely turning over a stone.

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 board was not doing the document search themselves. Imagine you’re the staff tasked with this. You’ve been asked to produce evidence of your illegal activity. Are you going to go with a wide interpretation and implicate yourself and your co-workers?

 

[Brian]

The board was not doing the document search themselves. Imagine you’re the staff tasked with this. You’ve been asked to produce evidence of your illegal activity. Are you going to go with a wide interpretation and implicate yourself and your co-workers?

I acknowledged in one of my earlier posts that the board wasn't doing the search themselves. However, the staff doing the search and responsible for producing documents ultimately reports to the board. Though, yes, I would certainly be looking to avoid implicating myself, if at all possible, no matter who the board is.

 

[DisneyHead123]

My theory, which is by no means anything more than a hunch, is that the records were destroyed prior to the CFTOD board being seated. I hope I'm wrong.

I think in general people know not to leave a paper trail via company email and instead speak in person or at the very least over the phone in regard to contentious issues. And that likely goes triple at the level of Disney execs.

 

[Chi84]

The attorney general only made a public records request. That is barely turning over a stone.


The board was not doing the document search themselves. Imagine you’re the staff tasked with this. You’ve been asked to produce evidence of your illegal activity. Are you going to go with a wide interpretation and implicate yourself and your co-workers?

This would have been handled by attorneys.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Why? They could have said, listen we want to redo these agreements. They do it all publicly and above the board. There would be no need to anything secretly. The governor just wasn't paying attention.

The question is when did the agreements first get discussed? The meeting minutes don’t suggest Disney just showing up and saying “Hey, how about this?” There was some point before the public hearings when the board was presented with the idea (or even potentially vice versa) and those documents were given to the board. There should be a record of someone sending the contracts to the board at the very minimum.

 

[Brian]

This would have been handled by attorneys.

I don't see a way the records search (in response to the AG and Sentinel's request) could have been handled exclusively by attorneys without the district staff's cooperation.

 

[the_rich]

The question is when did the agreements first get discussed? The meeting minutes don’t suggest Disney just showing up and saying “Hey, how about this?” There was some point before the public hearings when the board was presented with the idea (or even potentially vice versa) and those documents were given to the board. There should be a record of someone sending the contracts to the board at the very minimum.

But that isn't what they were looking for. Disney saying we want to discuss new agreements isn't an issue. They were looking for something showing intent. They didn't find that.

 

[Chi84]

I don't see a way the records search (in response to the AG and Sentinel's request) could have been handled exclusively by attorneys.

No but any communications between the RCID board and its attorneys are fairly safe.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But that isn't what they were looking for. Disney saying we want to discuss new agreements isn't an issue. They were looking for something showing intent. They didn't find that.

I get that, but what you keep describing goes beyond documents not just meeting the very specific request. It does seem odd though that a newspaper wouldn’t use broader wording I. Their own request.

 

[Brian]

No but any communications between the RCID board and its attorneys are fairly safe.

Interesting point. I do wonder, now that new board members have taken over, if they can waive attorney-client privilege.

 

[Brian]

I get that, but what you keep describing goes beyond documents not just meeting the very specific request. It does seem odd though that a newspaper wouldn’t use broader wording I. Their own request.

Nothing stopping them (or anyone else really) from giving it a second, broader try.