ORLANDO, Fla. — Members of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District Board voted Monday to allow their acting general counsel to defend them in a federal lawsuit filed against them last week by Disney.

They also voted to file a state lawsuit to enforce actions the board took on April 26 to regain control over the district by nullifying agreements made between Disney and the outgoing Reedy Creek Improvement District Board ahead of the state's takeover.

Disney filed a federal lawsuit soon after the board's actions on April 26, claiming the most recent action, and numerous others before it, were unconstitutional retaliation by the state. The lawsuit was filed against members of the board, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Meredith Ivey, acting secretary of the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity.

Prior to its dissolution, the Reedy Creek board entered into land-use contracts with Disney ahead of a DeSantis-backed board takeover. The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District Board took action in an attempt to void the contracts, and the suit claims the move was in retaliation to the stance taken by Disney over Florida's Parental Rights in Education Act, which has been dubbed "Don't Say Gay" by its detractors.

“Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts, and we remain committed to supporting the national and state organizations working to achieve that,” the company wrote in a statement last year.

Disney claims that the moves made by the state, from taking over the former Reedy Creek Improvement District to voiding the company's contracts on April 26, violate its constitutional rights under the First Amendment.

The company also argues, among other things, that voiding the agreements was a violation of the Contracts Clause, which prevents state governments from altering existing contract rights.

“There is no room for disagreement about what happened here: Disney expressed its opinion on state legislation and was then punished by the State for doing so,” Disney said in the lawsuit.

"Disney regrets that it has come to this," the lawsuit says. "But having exhausted efforts to seek a resolution, the Company is left with no choice but to file this lawsuit to protect its cast members, guests, and local development partners from a relentless campaign to weaponize government power against Disney in retaliation for expressing a political viewpoint unpopular with certain state officials."

The lawsuit asks the court to declare Disney's contracts and agreements made with the previous Reedy Creek Improvement District Board valid and enforceable, and undo measures taken by the Florida Legislature to take over the district in the first place by declaring Senate Bill 4C and House Bill 9B "unenforceable because they were enacted in retaliation for Disney's political speech in violation of the First Amendment."

It also specifically asks the judge to prevent the state from enforcing Senate Bill 4C and House Bill 9B, and any actions related to the nullifying of the company's contracts and agreements.

DeSantis Responds

Meanwhile, DeSantis told reporters Thursday that he doesn’t believe the lawsuit has merit.

“They’re upset because they’re actually having to live by the same rules as everybody else," he said. "They don’t want to have to pay the same taxes as everybody else and they want to be able to control things without proper oversight, which every other Floridian has to have this type of oversight — all Florida businesses."

In prepared remarks released by the oversight board Monday, chairman Martin Garcia argued that the members are just doing the job given to them by the Florida Legislature.

"I have said this at every meeting of this board.  Please hear me loud and clear," Garcia said. "The task of this board is to promote better governance and evaluate a new and better zoning structure for the district, among other things. This means that we must address and correct longstanding problems and evaluate and adopt new policies and practices to promote more prosperity for more people working and playing in the district, and, in addition, for all the residents of Osceola and Orange counties."

In the statement, Garcia then listed a number of actions the board has taken, and other plans to accomplish:

1. "We hired a new general counsel, who doesn’t represent Disney, to make sure the district is in compliance with Florida law;
   
   
2. "We hired legal counsel, one being a former Florida Supreme Court Justice, who has since advised the board that Disney created illegal agreements in violation of many Florida laws;
   
   
3. "We hired an independent financial adviser to bring financial transparency and accountability to the district;
   
   
4. "We adopted rules to govern the conduct of this board — something that never existed before for the old board;
   
   
5. "We authorized the hiring of a rate-setting consultant to ensure that the utility rates that Disney tries to impose on other district taxpayers are appropriate and reasonable; 
   
   
6. "We authorized a search to hire an independent urban planner to evaluate affordable and work force housing in the district, and, additionally, to develop better traffic and environmental solutions;
   
   
7. "We authorized a search to hire an economic consultant to do a regional fiscal impact study to make sure that the district is functioning as a good neighbor to Orange and Osceola counties; 
   
   
8. "We committed to evaluate how the district can help Orange and Osceola counties in the eighty-seven (87) lawsuits Disney has filed contesting their own ad valorem taxes; and
   
   
9. "We authorized the hiring of a new administrator of this district with impressive leadership credentials and an impeccable reputation for doing the right thing. The diversity and work experiences that he will bring to the district will significantly enhance this board’s capacity to make the district more inclusive and more prosperous for more people."

Garcia then accused Disney of trying to "wrestle back the hands of time to 1967, while this board is instead charged legislatively with bringing the district into the 21st Century with new and better policies and practices."