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

[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.

 

[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