Central Florida Tourism Oversight District loses a board member after just a few months in the job

8 days ago in "Reedy Creek Improvement District"

Posted: Saturday May 27, 2023 9:45am ET by WDWMAGIC Staff

Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board member Michael Sasso has resigned this week from his board position after less than four months in the job.

Sasso was appointed to the board that replaced the Reedy Creek Improvement District by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis at the end of February 2023. Other members of the five-person board are Bridget Ziegler, one of the authors of Florida's controversial Parental Bill of Rights law, Ron Peri, a former senior pastor of Evangel Baptist Church and now CEO of The Gathering, and lawyers Martin Garcia and Brian Aungst.

In his position as a board member of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, Sasso is being sued by the Walt Disney Company as part of the lawsuit against the entire board of the district and Governor Ron DeSantis.

There is no word yet on his replacement, and the next Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board meeting is scheduled for June 21.

Discuss on the Forums

Follow WDWMAGIC on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube for more Walt Disney World news and updates

View all comments →

Vacationeer16 minutes ago

Each time I read this it still seems like a horrible example from Scalia. Using an example like Aryan Supreme Party when it comes to a housing security contract - wtf? Could the AS Party even meet all of the contract terms? This is what is stopping groups like this from getting government contracts. They can’t abide. The SC judge using this example almost seems disingenuous imo.

StaceyH_SD52 minutes ago

Literally what I was just going to ask.

mkt1 hour ago

I’m the parent of a child right now, and agree 100% with this

GoofGoof1 hour ago

Truer words have not been spoken. I just wanted to tell you that before all these posts get deleted 😀.

LittleBuford1 hour ago

Who are “they”, and what do you mean by “getting”?

Incomudro1 hour ago

You're so wrong. Things today aren't what they were like when you were raising children. They are getting children younger and younger, from the ground up. The government is trying to put some of the discretion of what is taught to children in the hands of the parents. It's becoming increasingly difficult for parents to combat what is drilled into kids heads everywhere they turn. I'm so glad my son's are 21, and i didn't have to attempt to correct all of this nonsense that they would be coming home telling me every day.

Goofyernmost1 hour ago

Funny, when I was raising children it was my job to make sure that they followed my rules and listened to what I said and not others that they don't even know. This whole "threat to our children" talking point is so much BS that it could fertilize half the world. It is not the job of the government to act as the parents of the children, it is an overreach and if anyone bothered to check it out one could easily see how small a problem this is at best and really not a problem in reality at all. Children are not anywhere near as gullible as the adults are showing themselves to be. Bigotry is so transparent! The only thing we should be demanding is that our children be protected from some brain dead, gun loving idiot using them for target practice. That threat is real and we are doing absolutely nothing about it at all. They can talk to me about protecting the children in other ways as soon as we take care of the real threat.

Chi847 hours ago

“The ends do not justify the means” is invoked variably depending on how one feels about the means. There is a more immediate threat to our children that is not being addressed because the “means” are intolerable to some. In those circumstances, the constitution is inviolate.

GoofGoof8 hours ago

Yeah, for sure. To your point this would be limiting what is considered protected today for individuals as well. There is a push away from the constitution and towards more authoritarian government overreach in the name of public good. Remember this all started to “protect the children”. For those that really believe in that the ends justify the means. As was pointed out earlier the literal verbiage of the constitution only protects citizens from being jailed or fined for speaking out. The rest of the protections are interpretations by the court and those can change.

RamblinWreck8 hours ago

There are a lot of ways you can mess with an individual or group without needing to jail or fine them though.

GoofGoof8 hours ago

The distinction is jailing or fining. It still upholds that the government cannot throw you in jail for speaking against them like the classic example of a protestor who cannot be jailed for attending a legally organized rally. For corporations there is not really a fear of jailing unless they tried to imprison the CEO or leadership which hasn’t really been a concern. Government retaliation against corporations is usually tied to damaging their ability to make a profit or operate their business. If Freedom of Speech is limited solely to no jail time and no direct fines then all these actions can be retaliation but they are still legal.

RamblinWreck9 hours ago

I think it will essentially eliminate freedom of speech, full stop. There’s no reason it would have to be limited to corporations.

MisterPenguin10 hours ago

Cats are crepuscular. Examples of crepuscular logic:

GoofGoof11 hours ago

I’m not sure these guys care about the constitution. I have said from the beginning that part of this plan is to attempt to use the courts to validate this kind of retaliation. If the state wins this case then they have a blank check to punish anyone who speaks against them on any issue. They have gone out of their way to eliminate any doubt on whether this is retaliation. They want the courts to rule that the retaliation was ok. I think as @ParentsOf4 posted the case now revolves around a judge and/or appeals court and possibly the US Supreme Court ruling whether freedom of speech is limited to just not jailing or fining a person. I don’t know how this will turn out, but if the state wins and especially if it happens at the Supreme Court level it will essentially eliminate the Freedom of Speech for Corporations. With the war on woke corporations ramping up I think that is politically what is desired by a lot of people. Companies that incorporate diversity, equity and inclusion in any way can and will be punished by the government in many places.