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

[john7994]

All the special districts in Florida have to submit audits (I assume by independent auditors that they pick?) every year.
Their yearly audits can be found here:
https://flauditor.gov/pages/special districts_efiles.html#!u-v

Just to be clear: every special district submits their own audit by their own handpicked independent auditor. The villages does it every year and RCID did it every year. These are not audits conducted by the government. Just as this audit we are talking about was not. It was conducted just like all other audits by all other special districts. I’m sure Reedy creek picked an independent auditor that would favor them just like the Villages does and so on. I’m not saying I like that idea and certainly every special district should have audits outside of what they usually to by an auditor not picked by the special district. But this audit was not one of those. And it wasn’t purported to be.

To be fair, this audit wasn’t conducted like all the other audits with some pretty major distinctions in addition
- Special Legislation was created to mandate findings by the oversight board for this audit
- The oversight board is adversarial and prejudicial with the entity that it is overseeing
- The oversight board is selected and serves at the pleasure of the governor (who is also publicly adversarial to the entity)
- The oversight board sought specific external consultation in conducting of the audit with a focus on forensic accounting with the stated purpose to look for malfeasance (this may be splitting hairs - as all audit should really be doing this)
- The audit itself went back to the beginning of the special district creation to illustrate a very specific narrative
- And as others have posted, the resulting narrative tone was very tabloid-esque and opinion based

 

[HokieRaven5]

Usually leftists like when big government goes after big business and hates when big business gets tax breaks and special treatment. So this is different on the dis and

This situation goes beyond left or right based upon how it transpired.

It’s one thing if this audit was done prior to the change as a way to justify the need to overtake RCID. Just simply do the necessary due diligence on the ins and outs of RCID prior to dissolving/reconfiguring. That’s not what happened at the onset and the whole process of dissolving was based around something that the single largest landholder with the most voting power in the district said.

I dislike the idea of a larger form of government overtaking a local form of government no matter what party is doing it. Needs an incredibly strong argument and evidence at the initial onset for me to say “yeah, maybe that is the best course of action”. That just didn’t seem to happen here.

 

[Sweettears]

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...

You are calling it a report which it is. However it’s being presented as an audit which it clearly isn’t. As many have said real audits are independent. Seeking out an entity the is predisposed to the outcome you desire lacks any semblance of independence.

 

[Disneychick13]

This situation goes beyond left or right based upon how it transpired.

It’s one thing if this audit was done prior to the change as a way to justify the need to overtake RCID. Just simply do the necessary due diligence on the ins and outs of RCID prior to dissolving/reconfiguring. That’s not what happened at the onset and the whole process of dissolving was based around something that the single largest landholder with the most voting power in the district said.

I dislike the idea of a larger form of government overtaking a local form of government no matter what party is doing it. Needs an incredibly strong argument and evidence at the initial onset for me to say “yeah, maybe that is the best course of action”. That just didn’t seem to happen here.

I agree with you that due diligence was not done and that they rushed into it. My assumption is that there have been many legislators over time that really wanted to get rid of RCID. But there was never enough support due to the heavy influence that Disney had with its political donations and lobbying efforts. When Disney stated that they were going to make it their goal (as a company) to overturn legislation (which had already passed and which they had ironically declined to lobby against) then those legislators saw a good opportunity to finally do something that they wanted to do anyways. But they had never done a deep dive into the issue (because they didn’t think they would ever have enough support to make it happen) and knew that if they did do their “due diligence” that support would probably wane and it would never happen. So they rushed into it.

It does put a bad taste in my mouth because I don’t like government overreach (even though in fairness it probably would always have been a good idea to restructure this district but not necessarily in the way they did it). To me, there should be representation on the board from every entity that has a stake in the district along with a government appointee. Hopefully over time this is something that might come to pass as new government officials are elected that might look at this with a new lens.

 

[HokieRaven5]

I agree with you that due diligence was not done and that they rushed into it. My assumption is that there have been many legislators over time that really wanted to get rid of RCID. But there was never enough support due to the heavy influence that Disney had with its political donations and lobbying efforts. When Disney stated that they were going to make it their goal (as a company) to overturn legislation (which had already passed and which they had ironically declined to lobby against) then those legislators saw a good opportunity to finally do something that they wanted to do anyways. But they had never done a deep dive into the issue (because they didn’t think they would ever have enough support to make it happen) and knew that if they did do their “due diligence” that support would probably wane and it would never happen. So they rushed into it.

It does put a bad taste in my mouth because I don’t like government overreach (even though in fairness it probably would always have been a good idea to restructure this district but not necessarily in the way they did it). To me, there should be representation on the board from every entity that has a stake in the district along with a government appointee. Hopefully over time this is something that might come to pass as new government officials are elected that might look at this with a new lens.

A 5 member board configuration akin to the following:

2 - Locally elected
1 - Osceola County Appointed
1 - Orange County Appointed
1 - State Appointed

Would either side go for that, no clue.

 

[sam_gordon]

When Disney stated that they were going to make it their goal (as a company) to overturn legislation (which had already passed and which they had ironically declined to lobby against) then those legislators saw a good opportunity to finally do something that they wanted to do anyways.

This is my main problem with it. They made the move BECAUSE Disney spoke out against legislation. How is that not a First Amendment violation? If I say "I don't like this law and I'm going to make it my goal to overturn it." should the government be able to come in and say "you don't get to claim any deductions on your taxes!"? Why is ANYONE okay with this?

If lawmakers feel RCID needed to be disbanded, do the due diligence and preset your findings to the legislature, NOT as a response to something Disney did, but because you (general) feel it needs to be done.

 

[john7994]

A 5 member board configuration akin to the following:

2 - Locally elected
1 - Osceola County Appointed
1 - Orange County Appointed
1 - State Appointed

Would either side go for that, no clue.

It will have to be a compromise of some sort, but not a fan of “appointed” anything - and while still imperfect - a representative format ensures some constituencies (in the majority) will be heard - and since they are the most impacted by decisions - seems fairer.

Again, this only addresses one special district, this also needs to be applied across the board to all special districts. This concept can’t be lost in all this outcry for accountability and fairness including real audits a la rules reserved for public-traded companies. Transparency and fairness isn’t hard to enact when that’s the actual focus.

 

[HokieRaven5]

It will have to be a compromise of some sort, but not a fan of “appointed” anything - and while still imperfect - a representative format ensures some constituencies (in the majority) will be heard - and since they are the most impacted by decisions - seems fairer.

Again, this only addresses one special district, this also needs to be applied across the board to all special districts. This concept can’t be lost in all this outcry for accountability and fairness including real audits a la rules reserved for public-traded companies. Transparency and fairness isn’t hard to enact when that’s the actual focus.

Agreed with what you said. I’m not entirely on board with appointing either, was just an initial possible negotiation if one were to take place

 

[john7994]

Agreed with what you said. I’m not entirely on board with appointing either, was just an initial possible negotiation if one were to take place

Just begs the question - with all the options available to make it at least look legit - they took the one route that makes them look like exactly what they were complaining was happening in the first place. But I suspect legit required time, and time wasn’t a luxury for some that had higher aspirations in a short window. And as many have already mentioned, there is absolutely no downside to these players except years of litigation and taxpayer / consumer monies being spent to pay for it all.

 

[whiteness]

Disney's troubles with movies are not about having gay characters or female leads...that is just flat out lazy thinking. It is the complete abandonment of compelling storytelling in order to push socio-political messages. That what is meant by "woke". And they did it on purpose.

Flip the script and look at almost all Christian based movies. They stink. Badly. And for the exact same reason: abandonment of storytelling in order to push a message at all costs.

As for DEI programs...the pendulum has swung to far. Disney has wound up as an echo chamber that thinks it is best to push socio-political messages at the expense of good storytelling...or, worse, as a group that is simply unable to write compelling stories.

I agree that entertainment companies will make more "entertaining" movies, rides, theming, and etc., if they put their primary focus on entertaining rather than pushing an agenda. Whatever that agenda happens to be.

But, to be fair, Disney has been known for mixing education with entertainment. And they've often done it very well. But, lately, their efforts to "educate" their audience has bothered people more than I remember it has in the past. Perhaps my memory is not accurate.

 

[Disneychick13]

This is my main problem with it. They made the move BECAUSE Disney spoke out against legislation. How is that not a First Amendment violation? If I say "I don't like this law and I'm going to make it my goal to overturn it." should the government be able to come in and say "you don't get to claim any deductions on your taxes!"? Why is ANYONE okay with this?

If lawmakers feel RCID needed to be disbanded, do the due diligence and preset your findings to the legislature, NOT as a response to something Disney did, but because you (general) feel it needs to be done.

So I’m going to try to articulate why I don’t actually think it’s a 1A violation. I think it was political move that happened in an opportune moment. It wasn’t like they made the move because of pushback from Disney. I think they made the move because an opportunity arose because there was political will. It was more like “we have more political capital because you have less political capital”. Also, RCID wasn’t Disney. I think in order for there to be any kind of 1st amendment violation, you would have to have the new board actually make moves that don’t have any bearing in facts that are detrimental to Disney. Like you would have to show that the board made decisions on things that affected Disney negatively that had no basis in rules or laws.

It’s just my opinion, but I don’t see a strong case for a 1A violation. I see a case to be sure but I don’t think it’s a winnable one. That being said, I don’t agree with how this was handled. I agree with you that if they wanted to restructure the board they should have gone about it in a more methodical way. But they couldn’t because the political will would not have been there anymore. It was a small window and they took it. (when I say they couldn’t, I know they could have but not in their eyes).

 

[john7994]

So I’m going to try to articulate why I don’t actually think it’s a 1A violation. I think it was political move that happened in an opportune moment. It wasn’t like they made the move because of pushback from Disney. I think they made the move because an opportunity arose because there was political will. It was more like “we have more political capital because you have less political capital”. Also, RCID wasn’t Disney. I think in order for there to be any kind of 1st amendment violation, you would have to have the new board actually make moves that don’t have any bearing in facts that are detrimental to Disney. Like you would have to show that the board made decisions on things that affected Disney negatively that had no basis in rules or laws.

It’s just my opinion, but I don’t see a strong case for a 1A violation. I see a case to be sure but I don’t think it’s a winnable one. That being said, I don’t agree with how this was handled. I agree with you that if they wanted to restructure the board they should have gone about it in a more methodical way. But they couldn’t because the political will would not have been there anymore. It was a small window and they took it. (when I say they couldn’t, I know they could have but not in their eyes).

It’s a reasonable view after the fact, but the actions taken were by governmental officials acting in their official capacities- not just by political candidates. And unfortunately, there is too much coincidence in timing, public documentation, a book, and social media by governmental and appointed officials by the government (acting in their capacities) which undermine this reasoning.

I don’t think it’s a slam dunk 1A argument either as there is significant burden, but discovery is bound to be very uncomfortable for a lot of people and it doesn’t look good that the executive branch has already tried to play the immunity game (not once but twice), claiming it was a legislative action (will of the people) argument - but continues to tout it as an accomplishment as governor.

 

[sam_gordon]

So I’m going to try to articulate why I don’t actually think it’s a 1A violation. I think it was political move that happened in an opportune moment. It wasn’t like they made the move because of pushback from Disney. I think they made the move because an opportunity arose because there was political will. It was more like “we have more political capital because you have less political capital”. Also, RCID wasn’t Disney. I think in order for there to be any kind of 1st amendment violation, you would have to have the new board actually make moves that don’t have any bearing in facts that are detrimental to Disney. Like you would have to show that the board made decisions on things that affected Disney negatively that had no basis in rules or laws.

It’s just my opinion, but I don’t see a strong case for a 1A violation. I see a case to be sure but I don’t think it’s a winnable one. That being said, I don’t agree with how this was handled. I agree with you that if they wanted to restructure the board they should have gone about it in a more methodical way. But they couldn’t because the political will would not have been there anymore. It was a small window and they took it. (when I say they couldn’t, I know they could have but not in their eyes).

It's ok, we disagree.

And that's an example of how the new "Debate" board should work.

 

[MillauFr]

Whatever that agenda happens to be.

Their primary agenda is to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. That is the #1 goal for publicly traded companies in the United States.

Are you considering changing the title of this thread?

 

[Douglas Dubh]

Are you considering changing the title of this thread?

There’s no reason to do that.

 

[MillauFr]

There’s no reason to do that.

The title is inaccurate and misleading. The OP has a chance to correct their mistake.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

The title is inaccurate and misleading.

No it’s not. The audit was done by a third party so it’s independent.

 

[NYCgrrl]

No it’s not. The audit was done by a third party so it’s independent.

Err… well but that’s not how being an independent auditor works.

 

[MillauFr]

No it’s not. The audit was done by a third party so it’s independent.

So if they hired a third party that was on record with numerous anti DeSantis statements to conduct the audit it would have been independent? I think not.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

Err… well but that’s not how being an independent auditor works.

Yes, that is how it works. My son used to do audits for one of the Big 4. His firm would be hired by other firms to perform independent audits.