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

[lazyboy97o]

The request is in the public record, I believe.

It is? Where? I’m admittedly skimming, but I don’t see it in the meeting minutes before the first public hearing.

 

[Chi84]

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

Honestly, in this case I don’t think it would even matter. Everyone knew what was going on and the RCID was being replaced and was friendly to Disney. The lawyers would have had to be pretty incompetent to say something suspect.

 

[Brian]

Honestly, in this case I don’t think it would even matter. Everyone knew what was going on and the RCID was being replaced and was friendly to Disney. The lawyers would have had to be pretty incompetent to say something suspect.

If this ultimately ends up in formal legal proceedings, the attorneys might have to testify under oath, and if the CFTOD board were able to waive attorney-client privilege (after all, they are the client now), their only legally acceptable excuse to keep their mouths shut would be gone.

ETA: They could plead the 5th, but that would likely result in a loss in the court of public opinion.

 

[Stripes]

If this ultimately ends up in formal legal proceedings, the attorneys might have to testify under oath, and if the CFTOD board were able to waive attorney-client privilege (after all, they are the client now), their only legally acceptable excuse to keep their mouths shut would be gone.

ETA: They could plead the 5th, but that would likely result in a loss in the court of public opinion.

The new board doesn’t have the same attorney. The old RCID board was represented by Edward Milgrim. The new board is not.

 

[Chi84]

If this ultimately ends up in formal legal proceedings, the attorneys might have to testify under oath, and if the CFTOD board were able to waive attorney-client privilege (after all, they are the client now), their only legally acceptable excuse to keep their mouths shut would be gone.

ETA: They could plead the 5th, but that would likely result in a loss in the court of public opinion.

Without commenting on all that: Bottom line is I seriously doubt there is anything to find. I would bet just about anything on it.

 

[Brian]

The new board doesn’t have the same attorney. The old RCID board was represented by Edward Milgrim. The new board is not.

Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering if the same attorney was still around.

This is not a rhetorical question: notwithstanding the prior attorney being dismissed, couldn't the CFTOD board (representing the client now) waive the attorney-client privilege so Mr. Milgrim would have to speak to what happened with this contract, if under oath?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Honestly, in this case I don’t think it would even matter. Everyone knew what was going on and the RCID was being replaced and was friendly to Disney. The lawyers would have had to be pretty incompetent to say something suspect.

At the time the board was not going to be replaced. There were rumors but the official state position was that the board would be no more.

 

[Brian]

Without commenting on all that: Bottom line is I seriously doubt there is anything to find. I would bet just about anything on it.

I hope, for the sake of ending this crap show, and the state focusing on more pressing/winnable matters, you're right.

 

[Chi84]

At the time the board was not going to be replaced. There were rumors but the official state position was that the board would be no more.

Same result. The board didn't need to know anything more than what was placed in front of them.

 

[Stripes]

Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering if the same attorney was still around.

This is not a rhetorical question: notwithstanding the prior attorney being dismissed, couldn't the CFTOD board (representing the client now) waive the attorney-client privilege so Mr. Milgrim would have to speak to what happened with this contract, if under oath?

I do believe the new board could waive attorney client privilege. Which isn’t to say there would be anything incriminating.

 

[Stripes]

Bottom line: Disney worked these agreements out with the RCID attorney. Discussions between Disney Legal and the RCID attorney are not subject to sunshine law requirements. Once everything was finished the RCID attorney presented the proposal to the board.

 

[GoofGoof]

So the Gov and his crew hoped there would be a smoking gun implicating Disney and the old board in some sort of collusion or fraud that could be used to void the contract so as a hail Mary they made a public record request. The request came back with no findings and now the spin is that a lack of findings is evidence of the fraud? Spin, spin, spin. Remember, this was the request:

“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,” James Percival, Moody’s chief of staff, wrote in a public records request filed with the district on Thursday.

The request wasn’t asking for any correspondence at all so it’s likely Disney forwarded a copy of the contract to the board prior to the meetings….to be discussed at the meeting. That’s not illegal or a violation of Sunshine laws. The board cannot deliberate or debate the merits of the contract and definitely cannot reach a conclusion behind closed doors. Disney told us it was all done in public and in compliance with the required laws. It’s time some people acknowledge 1 side here was smart and planned ahead.

 

[GrumpyFan]

This story just keeps getting better.
By all appearances it looks like Disney really pulled one on the governor and the new board. The best part about it is they did it in public open meetings that were all done according to the law of the state.

IANAL, and this may be wishful thinking, but I can only imagine a judge looking at this and shaming the governor and his board for their ineptitude and ruling in Disneys favor. If this proves to be true, it will be one of the best true life stories Disney has ever produced.

I’ve said it before, but the Disney lawyer(s) in this case have to be applauded for their work. This is some truly amazing stuff! I hope to read about the details of how it all went down someday. For now, I’m happy just watching it all unfold.

 

[flynnibus]

It's not. Legal, that is.

They can pass a resolution calling themselves the Grand High Poo Bahs of the Kingdom of the United States if they want. Neither Disney nor anyone else has no obligation to listen to them.

The contracts supercede any resolution.

Survey says… bzzzzt

 

[flynnibus]

The new board assumed the responsibilities of the old board. That includes all their obligations. That includes their contracts.

Disney’s deal doesn’t redefine the district’s land management and planning roles - it constrains them.

So disney’s deal has nothing to do with how the district structures itself to implement it’s authorities.

The resolution in question is simply about changing whose job it is in the district to manage the process and the outputs. They basically are looking to fire their workers and make themselves responsible. None of this is about redefining the role of the district or disney’s role as a constituent or landowner

 

[flynnibus]

Sure.

But that power is limited by the developer agreement and the restrictive covenants.

The resolution is nonsense. It's the equivalent of a three year old stomping its feet. They can say they are the final arbiters of development all they want, but legally they aren't.

No - its just about changing the existing structure and delegation within the district. It is not a direct challenge to the last min disney agreements.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

Or they did what smart lawyers tell you to do - don’t put it on paper/email/txts.

 

[MandaM]

Is it even illegal to circumvent, avoid, etc "anticipated actions" of the governor or legislature? First, Disney didn't know what actions the state would actually end up taking. Second, can taking action that was legal at the time be considered malfeasance just because the law would be changing at a later date in some way?

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Is it even illegal to circumvent, avoid, etc "anticipated actions" of the governor or legislature? First, Disney didn't know what actions the state would actually end up taking. Second, can taking action that was legal at the time be considered malfeasance just because the law would be changing at a later date in some way?

This is what I was thinking... this likely happens (to some extent) after every election. If a business feels the current political makeup is more friendly than the one that just won an election they'd be crazy not to take advantage of the few months before the new regime takes over. That's just smart business.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Is it even illegal to circumvent, avoid, etc "anticipated actions" of the governor or legislature? First, Disney didn't know what actions the state would actually end up taking. Second, can taking action that was legal at the time be considered malfeasance just because the law would be changing at a later date in some way?

I thought the AG, DeSantis and Co were going after Disney by alleging they violated the sunshine law by not having public meetings about this contract, which wasn’t true. They touted that Disney circumvented the will of the legislature and the “taxpayers”, I’m not sure if that’s illegal though.