Independent Audit Blasts Disney For Pulling ‘Bait And Switch’ On Florida: ‘A Mousetrap’

[Douglas Dubh]

As far as I can tell, these benefits were approved in public votes and their budget items were listed in public budgets. And for the most part the only taxpayer was the Walt Disney Company, which ostensibly was OK.

A public employee who receives a taxable benefit from a company it oversees would need to declare that to the IRS and pay taxes for it.

 

[whiteness]

You're bringing up illegality. I don't see where there's been any illegality other than the say so of a party that isn't terribly trustworthy nor neutral. There's been well known animosity in the removal of RCID and the formation of a new district and board.

I am not qualified to say what was and was not legal. Some people have said that absolutely everything Disney has done was totally legal. If so, have confidence that they will be able to defend themselves against any illegitimate charges and prevail. Perhaps it is naive of me to have faith in the criminal justice system, but I do.

However, other folks have said that Disney has committed criminal acts or had others commit them for Disney's benefit. If that is true, then Disney should be made to answer for their crimes. Because, regardless how much all of us may like Disney and the Cast Members and artists that work for the company, nobody and no company is above the law.

Just because some of the folks that are accusing Disney have animosity towards the company is not proof that their accusations must be wrong. And claiming that a party isn't trustworthy isn't proof of that fact: both sides are claiming that about the other. People are choosing to believe the side that they want to be "right", and their reasons are also suspect and biased. Both sides are probably correct that the other side is not fully honest and trustworthy. Anytime lawyers, politicians, corporate greed and vast sums of money get involved, can anyone involved be fully trusted? No, of course not.

Regardless, I still have faith that the truth will come out and justice will be done. Whatever that happens to be.

 

[bcla]

A public employee who receives a taxable benefit from a company it oversees would need to declare that to the IRS and pay taxes for it.

It really depends. It may or may not be reported by the employer as taxable income. But in any case that's on the employee to report it if taxable benefits aren't already reported on a W-2.

 

[bcla]

I am not qualified to say what was and was not legal. Some people have said that absolutely everything Disney has done was totally legal. If so, have confidence that they will be able to defend themselves against any illegitimate charges and prevail. Perhaps it is naive of me to have faith in the criminal justice system, but I do.

However, other folks have said that Disney has committed criminal acts or had others commit them for Disney's benefit. If that is true, then Disney should be made to answer for their crimes. Because, regardless how much all of us may like Disney and the Cast Members and artists that work for the company, nobody and no company is above the law.

Just because some of the folks that are accusing Disney have animosity towards the company is not proof that their accusations must be wrong. And claiming that a party isn't trustworthy isn't proof of that fact: both sides are claiming that about the other. People are choosing to believe the side that they want to be "right", and their reasons are also suspect and biased. Both sides are probably correct that the other side is not fully honest and trustworthy. Anytime lawyers, politicians, corporate greed and vast sums of money get involved, can anyone involved be fully trusted? No, of course not.

Regardless, I still have faith that the truth will come out and justice will be done. Whatever that happens to be.

Do you have any qualms that this "report" might just be a hit job that was predetermined because of animosity against Disney? I don't trust that a board that includes Bridget Ziegler is ever going to do the right thing.

 

[Kwami]

Some benefits are taxable and some aren't. If a company doesn't follow the law, they should be prosecuted. What's your point?

I don't think that anything I wrote was ambiguous, so my point should be clear. The summary is that it doesn't matter whether the company is private, for-profit, public, government, or any other. The rules are (mostly) the same with regards to taxable benefits.

Do you have any qualms that this "report" might just be a hit job that was predetermined because of animosity against Disney? I don't trust that a board that includes Bridget Ziegler is ever going to do the right thing.

I think that the conclusion is noteworthy.

"As the foregoing analysis demonstrates, the governance of the District was in dire need of reform, and thus the legislature was amply warranted in passing 2022 Florida Senate Bill 4C and 2023 Florida House Bill 9B. As a result of that legislation, the new District Administrator and the Board have undertaken a myriad of reforms, and the current governance structure is working well. Nevertheless, the Board reserves the right to make future recommendations as to additional structural changes that may be necessary to effectuate the complete reform of the District." (Emphasis added.)

In other words, this document exists to support the CFTOD/DeSantis arguments in the ongoing lawsuits. It's not an audit and it's not independent in any sense of the word. The entire document is full of loaded language and was clearly written to support the desired conclusion. I don't know if Disney did anything illegal, but I wouldn't want to have to rely on this document to show that they did.

 

[whiteness]

Look, people, of course the audit was requested because they thought there was some wrongdoing and the mandate was to find it. Why would anyone expect them to write a glowing report about how wonderful Disney was and what a great asset they were for the state of Florida?

Sure, if one of us had written the report, that's what they would have gotten. And we probably wouldn't have found many issues, either. Because, as I've pointed out now numerous times, people have already picked sides on this issue, and consistently only see the set of "facts" that supports their pre-existing viewpoint. And art blind to any other "facts" that do not. That is true no matter which side you are on. People already have such strong and hardened views on this, it is impossible for most of them to change at this point, no matter what they see or hear.

So, if anyone actually wanted an exhaustive deep dive into all of Disney's "wrongdoing", which Pro-Disney folks already believe is a logical impossibility, then you would have no choice but to hire people that were not "Pro-Disney." Given the enormous influence and presence Disney has in the state of Florida, it is impossible to find people who are truly neutral. People that would claim to be "neutral" might be doing so to hide the fact that they are secretly "Pro-Disney", so the safest option was to chose people who were known to be "anti-Disney."

Did that make the audit process biased? Yeah, probably. But, in my opinion, it would never be possible to make a totally "unbiased" audit of Disney's actions in Florida. It would either be biased in favor of or against them. If the reader made his or her own "audit", I'm sure you know, in your heart, which kind of audit you would write. We would all "find" the "facts" that supported the side we wanted to win. As long as audits need to be written by actual human beings, an audit of Disney will be biased.

That doesn't mean that the facts in the audit are lies and falsehoods. It does mean that they probably tried much harder to dig up bad things rather than good things, and presented their findings in a way that makes Disney look worse rather than better. Sorry to say, but the other side would have done the same thing, just in reverse (and they already are.)

The good news is, Disney can conduct their own audit and present their own facts. It's an adversarial process. Disney is no stranger to this: they sue people and organizations all the time. They have great legal representation, public relations and an army of loving fans. They won't just roll over and accept anything they feel is false or unfair. They will be given their day in court to prove their side.

But, if they did anything wrong, they should be made to pay for that. This isn't a Disney movie, where only "bad guys" go to jail and "good guys" are celebrated as heros. In real life, even "good guys" commit crimes, sometimes, and justice is supposed to be blind to concepts of "good" and "evil." Justice is just concerned with the equal application of the law. Besides, even Disney retcons "good" versus "evil" characters when cultural norms change. Someday, maybe even YOU, dear reader, will look back on this and realize "yeah, Disney really was the villain in this story."

Look what happened to Monsanto: anyone still remember Adventures to Inner-Space? They were presented as heros, but turned out to be villains. Oh well...

 

[snowwite]

None of this is anything to do with a deal Disney made Back when it was established.
This is 100% about Ron Desantis being spiteful and vindictive.

 

[QueenIsabella]

I've been mostly trying to stay out of this because the "signal to noise ratio" has been rather low.

That pretty much describes most of the quasi-political threads on the Community Board!

 

[whiteness]

None of this is anything to do with a deal Disney made Back when it was established.
This is 100% about Ron Desantis being spiteful and vindictive.

Sure, if DeSantis was Pro-Disney, there would have been no investigation. That's obvious.

 

[Southernmiss]

Professionals with no dog in the fight have read the audit say the audit is laughable and full of a specific agenda.

Why is that arguable?

 

[whiteness]

He was pro Disney when he got married there! He is just mad because Disney did not blindly follow his anti gay agenda. The audit is completely biased. It’s just more of his pandering to the homophobic, racist swamp red necks in the party.

But, that's the thing: DeSantis is a politician. It's his job to "have agendas" about political issues. Disney is an entertainment company. Disney didn't need have to have a "side" about anything not related to entertainment. They chose otherwise. Even if individual Cast Members do rightly have opinions about controversial issues, they don't need to associate those opinions with their employer, Disney. And Disney didn't need to officially adopt an opinion of their own. Yeah, they have free speech and all of that, but they also have the freedom NOT to speak. Like Universal is doing.

I don't even know what Universal's "side" is, and I honestly don't want to know. When I visit their parks or watch their movies, that's not what I want to think about. That's not why I'm going there. Maybe some of you readers know what Universal's position on social issues is, but they don't seem to try very hard to make them widely known. And that's pretty smart, in my opinion. Because taking sides is much better at making enemies than friends, and "entertainment" companies will have bigger audiences and make more money if they make people feel happy and good about themselves, rather than upset or defensive.

But that's neither here nor there: whether you, or DeSantis, likes Disney or not doesn't "prove" or "disprove" any of the allegations. The facts will do that. Not passionately held feelings or political vendettas. So, let's follow the facts and see where they lead.

 

[Disneychick13]

How dare that defense attorney for the murderer not show evidence that their client is guilty! I’m sure if Disney commissioned their own report it would be chock full of any Infractions they might be guilty of., right? This was never billed as a forensic audit. It was prepared for the FL governor and legislature per Florida House bill 9-B. Take it with the same grain of salt you would if Disney prepared their own report.

Note: If you hate Desantis and the current legislature in the state of Florida….you don’t have to even read this report because you already know it’s biased and wrong and really the great evil of our time. And all the current board members are horrible people (personally and professionally) and Disney never did anything wrong (and never will).

Note 2: If you think Disney is the great evil of our time…you also don’t have to read the report! You already know that everything in it is totally correct and Disney is the worst and all of its previous RCID board members were terrible and corrupt. Thank goodness it’s gone!

Note 3: If you are a human being capable of reason and understanding…..congratulations! You can look at the report if you wish, knowing that neither Disney nor the state of Florida are the ultimate villain. You will continue to look at all information rationally and try to form your own opinions on legislation and events.

 

[HokieRaven5]

Martin Garcia alluding to getting additional legislation to possibly expand eminent domain powers of CFTOD to either reclaim land owned by Disney or the surrounding area was interesting from yesterday’s meeting.

 

[whiteness]

FYI, this guy's testimony seems pretty factual to me (but I wish those two commentators would just shut up because they were very irritating!) But I'd love hearing from "Pro-Disney" financial experts out there:

 

[fatmanatee]

Yeah, they have free speech and all of that, but they also have the freedom NOT to speak. Like Universal is doing.

This doesn't sound like free speech.

 

[whiteness]

This doesn't sound like free speech.

It's called "the right to remain silent" Sometimes, knowing when to stop talking is very valuable, both for individuals and corporations.

 

[BrianL]

FYI, this guy's testimony seems pretty factual to me (but I wish those two commentators would just shut up because they were very irritating!) But I'd love hearing from "Pro-Disney" financial experts out there:

That thumbnail alone is telling. Anyone actually talking about this seriously wouldn't have such an over the top graphic.

 

[BrianL]

It's called "the right to remain silent" Sometimes, knowing when to stop talking is very valuable, both for individuals and corporations.

That is NOT what "The right to remain silent" means. You are speaking or Miranda rights, where someone being arrested is advised that they may remain silent lest their own words be used to help prove that they committed a crime. The words themselves are not considered the crime.

 

[MillauFr]

Go look at his YouTube videos. He's apparently got a huge axe to grind over Disney. Everyone of those videos is negative toward Disney and cheering for it. Seems to be a huge advocate for a certain former President. Are any of the videos truthful or misleading? I do not know, but there's enough bias in his products to know that he is not a neutral evaluator of anything. Thought I'd see some balanced subject matter but that's not happening with this internet lawyer.

The audit's author is a member of the federalist society which is a far right group of lawyers and legal scholars. They generally produced well reasoned arguments but to claim this audit is unbiased and independant is ludicrous.

 

[fatmanatee]

It's called "the right to remain silent" Sometimes, knowing when to stop talking is very valuable, both for individuals and corporations.

And this isn't the correct application of this advice, so I think we're all clear on your understanding of the law now.