Are there any lawyers willing to speculate?

[Disneychick13]

I would assume the legal thinking is that the Sunshine Law was violated (I mean it had to be, right?). Either the board was completely derelict in their duties and just green lit anything Disney put before them (I guess which is certainly possible) or it was discussed behind the scenes. And the obvious intent was to circumvent the new board. Clearly. But I sincerely doubt that Disney screwed this up and left any kind of a paper trail. I suspect it will pass legal muster (but who knows). I feel like both sides should just quietly let this go. Desantis can still claim he stood up to Disney (which is true) and Disney can say they fought back (which is also true). They kind of both win and lose at the end of the day.

 

[bcla]

There were looking for evidence that Disney violated the Sunshine Law, which forbids two or more members of an elected board discussing board business in a venue that isn't public. The AG added language about Disney "circumventing the will of the governor and legislature" but since the Reedy Creek board passed the new agreements two days before the legislature passed the bill creating the new board, that appears to be rhetorical fluff.

I'll also note that since Twitter changed its rules, anyone can pay for a blue verified check mark; the person responding to Scott Gustin by leaping to conclusions about Florida/US governance law is from Montreal, doesn't appear to be a lawyer and has only 147 followers, so take their opinion as you will.

The previous board and Disney are too smart to do anything like that. And they didn't have to knowing that the board would probably just rubber stamp whatever Disney presented knowing they were on the way out. The current replacement board members are way out of their league.

 

[bcla]

I would assume the legal thinking is that the Sunshine Law was violated (I mean it had to be, right?). Either the board was completely derelict in their duties and just green lit anything Disney put before them (I guess which is certainly possible) or it was discussed behind the scenes. And the obvious intent was to circumvent the new board. Clearly. But I sincerely doubt that Disney screwed this up and left any kind of a paper trail. I suspect it will pass legal muster (but who knows). I feel like both sides should just quietly let this go. Desantis can still claim he stood up to Disney (which is true) and Disney can say they fought back (which is also true). They kind of both win and lose at the end of the day.

The issue here is that there is no compromise and it's become distinctly personal on one side. Disney is claiming that they they're just protecting their business interests and have done everything legally.

But absolutely it's possible that Disney attorneys just showed up, handed the board members a copy of the new agreement, had copies (or some sort of electronic access) of the agreement for any attendees, and the board voted on it. Like I said - rubber stamp. And perfectly legal as long as they followed all laws and regulations.

 

[The Foolish Mortal]

I had a look at that and noticed one respondent to the tweet thinks that the lack of any paper/text/email trail is problematic.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1647046826757947392

But that in and of itself isn't a legal problem. The former RCID and Disney say that everything was done in accordance with Florida's open meetings and sunshine laws. The new board has access to all of the old board's emails and texts and couldn't find anything responsive to the Florida AG's request. It doesn't mean that Disney wasn't allowed to have their attorneys draft the agreement in private (where they're not subject to public disclosure laws as a private actor) and then hand it over to the board to review and vote. I specifically hinted at a "rubber stamp", which would still be legal as long as it's done in open meetings. I'm guessing there were no objections during those meetings. Federal and state legislation has often been created by private actors and then introduced by legislators. This is nothing new with government entities.

Plus, that twitter response is a straw man. Reedy Creek didn't say no records exist at all (which is what the twitter responder seems to think). Reedy Creek just responded to the request by stating none of the requested records exist (i.e., the self-incriminating records)

 

[The Foolish Mortal]

I would assume the legal thinking is that the Sunshine Law was violated (I mean it had to be, right?). Either the board was completely derelict in their duties and just green lit anything Disney put before them (I guess which is certainly possible) or it was discussed behind the scenes. And the obvious intent was to circumvent the new board. Clearly. But I sincerely doubt that Disney screwed this up and left any kind of a paper trail. I suspect it will pass legal muster (but who knows). I feel like both sides should just quietly let this go. Desantis can still claim he stood up to Disney (which is true) and Disney can say they fought back (which is also true). They kind of both win and lose at the end of the day.

Respectfully, most people don't understand precisely what sunshine laws entail. I have no opinion on whether the law was violated in this instance (because nobody has enough facts to draw that conclusion yet one way or the other). But don't just assume it must have been violated.

Sunshine laws permit discussion behind the scenes. Individual board members are absolutely allowed to discuss with third parties proposals before them. Meaning they could each communicate with Disney about what these proposals meant, the impact, etc.. What sunshine law prohibits is discussions between board members about how they will vote or lobbying a fellow board member to vote a certain way. The board deliberations have to be performed in public. But gathering information, even from an impacted third party (i.e. Disney) is not a deliberation (by the legal meaning of the word)

 

[bcla]

Respectfully, most people don't understand precisely what sunshine laws entail. I have no opinion on whether the law was violated in this instance (because nobody has enough facts to draw that conclusion yet one way or the other). But don't just assume it must have been violated.

I think it's not just for any violation of deliberation in open meetings but public records.

And there has been recent controversy in Florida over attempts to shield certain government funded activities (like government travel) from public records disclosures.

 

[SuzErwin]

I think it's not just for any violation of deliberation in open meetings but public records.

And there has been recent controversy in Florida over attempts to shield certain government funded activities (like government travel) from public records disclosures.

Sunshine Law FAQ: https://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/Main/321B47083D80C4CD8525791B006A54E3

• Florida's Government-in-the-Sunshine law provides a right of access to governmental proceedings at both the state and local levels. It applies to any gathering of two or more members of the same board to discuss some matter which will foresee ably come before that board for action. There is also a constitutionally guaranteed right of access. Virtually all state and local collegial public bodies are covered by the open meetings requirements with the exception of the judiciary and the state Legislature which has its own constitutional provision relating to access.
• What are the requirements of the Sunshine law?
  The Sunshine law requires that 1) meetings of boards or commissions must be open to the public; 2) reasonable notice of such meetings must be given, and 3) minutes of the meeting must be taken.
• What is a public record?
  The Florida Supreme Court has determined that public records are all materials made or received by an agency in connection with official business which are used to perpetuate, communicate or formalize knowledge. They are not limited to traditional written documents. Tapes, photographs, films and sound recordings are also considered public records subject to inspection unless a statutory exemption exists.

However, the state AG made a specific request for “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.” An email saying, for example, “attached please find documents to be discussed at the next board meeting” would be a public record but would not meet the AG’s request.

 

[MartyParty]

The new district is still using the rcid.org website and post when meetings are happening. Looks like the meetings are gaining interest where they're going to a hotel ballroom (at the B Resort in Disney Springs) rather than the moderately sized meeting room at the RCID headquarters. There are no links or an agenda yet.

https://www.rcid.org/meetings/​

RCID Board of Supervisors Meeting​

DATE & TIME:Apr 19, 2023 at 9:30 AM​

LOCATION:B Resort (Grand Ballroom) - 1905 Hotel Plaza Blvd., Lake Buena Vista​

04-19-23 BOS Agenda​

I suppose it might be possible that someone chooses to set up a camera on a tripod to stream/record the meeting.

I looked it up and Grand Ballroom can be partitioned into 5 separate rooms with theater seating capacities from 150 to 1000. They don't have any photos of it in a theater configuration though.

https://www.bresortlbv.com/meetings-events/

Wonder if the new Central Florida Board has to pay fees to rent

 

[MartyParty]

The new district is still using the rcid.org website and post when meetings are happening. Looks like the meetings are gaining interest where they're going to a hotel ballroom (at the B Resort in Disney Springs) rather than the moderately sized meeting room at the RCID headquarters. There are no links or an agenda yet.

https://www.rcid.org/meetings/​

RCID Board of Supervisors Meeting​

DATE & TIME:Apr 19, 2023 at 9:30 AM​

LOCATION:B Resort (Grand Ballroom) - 1905 Hotel Plaza Blvd., Lake Buena Vista​

04-19-23 BOS Agenda​

I suppose it might be possible that someone chooses to set up a camera on a tripod to stream/record the meeting.

I looked it up and Grand Ballroom can be partitioned into 5 separate rooms with theater seating capacities from 150 to 1000. They don't have any photos of it in a theater configuration though.

https://www.bresortlbv.com/meetings-events/

Wonder if the new Central Florida Board has to pay fees to rent

 

[MartyParty]

I wondered the same thing! Wonder if they have to rent a meeting room from Disney? And sorry for the two blank posts. Tried to reply but no field existed to type my texts. Strange.

 

[bcla]

I wondered the same thing! Wonder if they have to rent a meeting room from Disney? And sorry for the two blank posts. Tried to reply but no field existed to type my texts. Strange.

I'm pretty sure that the ballroom isn't provided for free. As far as I can tell, the hotel is owned by B Hotels although it's probably on land leased to the hotel owners.

 

[Lilsia]

Originally, DeSantis wanted to disolve Reedy Creek completely. (Which he decided against because the over $1 Billion in Disney bonds would have to be paid by the taxpayers of Florida. So he simply renamed it and put his people in charge of it.)

DeSantis lost that option now. He can't even dissolve Reedy Creek anymore. Reedy Creek holds very little powers anymore. So removing the district would just move the $1 Billion in bonds to taxpayers with no 'punishment' against Disney.

So DeSantis is in far worse position than he was just a few months ago.

And doesn't that just warm my heart. LOL

 

[bcla]

Originally, DeSantis wanted to disolve Reedy Creek completely. (Which he decided against because the over $1 Billion in Disney bonds would have to be paid by the taxpayers of Florida. So he simply renamed it and put his people in charge of it.)

DeSantis lost that option now. He can't even dissolve Reedy Creek anymore. Reedy Creek holds very little powers anymore. So removing the district would just move the $1 Billion in bonds to taxpayers with no 'punishment' against Disney.

So DeSantis is in far worse position than he was just a few months ago.

I recall they didn't really think of that before. The whole thing was kind of hurried, but where they had over a year before RCID would be dissolved. The sponsors and DeSantis quickly stated that they'd find a replacement for the RCID board but one that wouldn't essentially be accountable to Disney via their employees (the only legal residents living within the RCID boundaries) voting for the board.

The analysis at the time was that if RCID was dissolved without a replacement, the RCID bond obligations would revert to the counties, although how to split it would have been interesting. Then the taxes to fund all the services that RCID used to provide would have needed to come from just county property taxes, which would have likely meant that all county taxpayers would get a property tax rate increase. The other deal was the bondholders and the covenant with the state was that the state was obligated to keep the district as it was composed. It might still be possible for bondholders to try and enforce that covenant.

 

[Obi-J Kenobi]

https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/1...esantis-oversight-is-legally-void-per-source/

TWDC may have missed step in the process of transferring powers.

 

[mdmost]

Here we go again:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1648016187559649318

 

[SuzErwin]

https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/1...esantis-oversight-is-legally-void-per-source/

TWDC may have missed step in the process of transferring powers.

The Federalist is not an unbiased, reliable media outlet by any stretch of imagination. The only indication that Disney did not follow procedures by mailing the notice to property owners - who are minimal in number and are all Disney employees plus Disney missing a step seems VERY unlikley - comes from unnamed "sources" and there isn't a link to another, verified news report.

 

[SuzErwin]

Here we go again:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1648016187559649318

DeSantis can announce whatever he likes to get into the news cycle. If he actually tries to act on it, it will be tied up in courts until after he's out of office.

 

[HokieRaven5]

Hey now! Wasn’t the intent Disney was supposed to end up on equal footing as the other theme parks?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1648020293573640194

 

[Obi-J Kenobi]

plus Disney missing a step seems VERY unlikley

People make mistakes. See, e.g. Strange World box office results.

 

[SuzErwin]

People make mistakes. See, e.g. Strange World box office results.

that is not a legal, procedural mistake made by people whose jobs are expressly to adhere to legal procedures