Central Florida Tourism Oversight District formally appoints DeSantis ally Glen Gilzean as the new District Administrator and retains John Classe as a special advisor

May 10, 2023 in "Reedy Creek Improvement District"

Forum Forums Tweet Share Tweet Share

Gallery / 1 Photo
Glen Gilzean speaking on May 10 at his appointment as District Administrator

Posted: Wednesday May 10, 2023 10:02am ET by WDWMAGIC Staff

The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board has agreed to appoint Glen Gilzean as the new District Administrator.

Glen Gilzean speaking on May 10 at his appointment as District Administrator

Gilzean is an ally of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and will be paid $400,000 per year in the role of administrator.

Speaking today, board Chair Martin Garcia talked about compensation for Gilzean and went to lengths to justify his pay. According to Garcia, the range for similar jobs in Florida is $271,000 to $453,000. Part of the reason for Gilzean being paid more than outgoing administrator Classe is that he will be facing an immediate lawsuit from Disney. Garcia said, "It is a reasonable compensation."

The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District has a new District Administrator

Today's appointment of Gilzean means that the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District's board and administrator are all hand-picked allies of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

Existing District Administrator John Classe, appointed by Reedy Creek Improvement District, will remain as a special advisor and will aid in the transition to the new administrator.

Notably, Classe's proposed contract with the new district would prohibit him from working for Disney and requires him to assist the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District in its legal battle with Disney.

The action by DeSantis to strip Disney of its self-managing district came in retaliation to Disney's public opposition to the Parental Bill of Right law, which took place under ex-Disney CEO Bob Chapek. Speaking at the Reedy Creek firehouse on February 27 when signing the bill to end Reedy Creek, DeSantis said that Disney's opposition to the Parents Bill of Rights bill was a "mild annoyance," but that the state of Florida will no longer be "joined at the hip with one California-based company." After signing the bill DeSantis said, "the corporate kingdom finally came to an end."

In an update to their lawsuit against DeSantis filed this week, Disney said, "the State's oversight board has purported to 'void' publicly noticed and duly agreed development contracts, which had laid the foundation for billions of Disney's investment dollars and thousands of jobs. Days later, the State Legislature enacted and Governor DeSantis signed legislation rendering these contracts immediately void and unenforceable. These government actions were patently retaliatory, patently anti-business, and patently unconstitutional. But the Governor and his allies have made clear they do not care and will not stop. The Governor recently declared that his team would not only "void the development agreement"—just as the State has now done, twice—but also planned 'to look at things like taxes on the hotels,' 'tolls on the roads,' 'developing some of the property that the district owns' with 'more amusement parks,' and even putting a 'state prison' next to Walt Disney World."

Reedy Creek Improvement District overview

Discuss on the Forums

Get Walt Disney World News Delivered to Your Inbox

Dcgc282 hours ago

Not sure you’ve said this enough times since they ended the lawsuit. Perhaps if you type it out 3-4 more times someone will care

lazyboy97o2 hours ago

They don’t have control. They are cowards who are hedging for the near future that they might be targets on a wider scale.

peter114353 hours ago

Sure. In hindsight they shouldn’t have done it because the state decided to illegally retaliate in response. If I leave my house to go to the store and on the way I get mugged… sure you could say it wouldn’t have happened if I had stayed home. But that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have gone out or that going out was a mistake. And it would certainly be ridiculous to refer to the situation by saying that me and the mugger both made mistakes.

mkt3 hours ago

It's not a compromise. Disney doesn't actually care about the free speech argument. Disney has quietly restarted political contributions (the true reason behind all of this) and now maintains control over their land with a board that will be friendlier while reserving the right to restart the federal appeal if an unfriendly board re-emerges. At the same time DeSantis can claim he won, and his supporters will not question it. All Disney wanted was control and to stop the damage to their image.

James Alucobond4 hours ago

He was saying it was unwise to do that knowing that they were coexisting with a loose cannon. It was unwise in the same way that walking through a sketchy neighborhood at night is kind of a bad idea, but no reasonable person would say that it was your fault if you got mugged or shot as a result.

LittleBuford4 hours ago

You don’t see a difference between an action that some may not approve of (Disney wading into politics) and an action that flies in the face of established constitutional protections (a government punishing an entity for exercising its right to free speech)? Those both fall under the category of “mistake” in your view?

Tom P.5 hours ago

Bob Iger himself has said that Disney should not have waded into the political issues the way they did under Chapek.

peter114355 hours ago

Well… they’re not supposed to be able to

Chi847 hours ago

The only problem with that is that Disney didn’t do anything wrong to justify retaliatory legislation. If the governor made Disney the target of his stump speeches that would have been fine. If the governor told people not to go to Disney that would have been fine. In this country the government cannot use the power we delegate to it to punish political speech.

Dranth7 hours ago

Irony at its best.

peter114357 hours ago

I see you didn’t answer but I’ll ask again. What “major mistake” did Disney make. I’m not asking you to restate all of the issues with everything that happened… just what major mistake Disney made. That should be easy right?

mmascari7 hours ago

Presumably, it was cheaper. Since Disney was paying the costs for both sides. Disney finding some type of agreement satisfactory enough to resolve the issue for them is not the same as Disney agreeing that they were wrong about anything. Not the same as Disney saying they couldn't win more. It simply Disney saying this solution is "good enough". Not "good", "not preferred", not a "win" or "loss", just "good enough". In fact, didn't they explicitly state if the agreement isn't good enough, they reserve the right to continue to fight it. That's all it tells us. There's no greater meaning in this resolution with insight about any additional details.

MR.Dis7 hours ago

Once again we see personal biases. So if Disney was so blameless, why did they give in to a compromise. Most on this forum stated it was a slam dunk win in both State and Federal Court. Hold on, Disney totally threw in the towel at the State level and has put on hold their Federal Case. Does that sound like a party that was totally right. Yes, most keep bringing up the same issues regarding how Disney was targeted in this forum, but there are those who tried to be more balanced and stated what Disney did wrong. I am not going down the path and restating all the issues, again there 1254 pages that go thru all the issues. What I suggest is to not just read those posts that agree with your opinions, but read the posts that are contrary--that is the only way you will truly see why a compromise was the only way to go.