I hate to rain on the Moms for Liberty bashing parade, but if you review the ethics report, you'll find that Disney gave RCID board members 'improper cash gifts' as well as 'lavish spending' on district employees.
I look forward to the excuse-making.
The 'lavish spending' refers to the benefits, similar to what Disney provides to its own CMs, which originally Disney provided to RCID at no cost, but later the district took on as expenses. When they took them on as expenses, they did not pay the taxes for the benefit to the IRS, either by deducting from the employees' pay, or reporting it on the employees' pay and paying it on their behalf. When it was brought to Classe's attention that it was a taxable benefit, he declined to treat it that way and classified it as 'employee training.'Isn't the list of items reported under "lavish spending" just the list of RCID employee benefits we already knew about? The district chose to pay for these things and offer them as benefits to attract and retain employees. That is their prerogative, and there is nothing inherently problematic about it. Most of the accusations in the document are vague and suggest that the arrangement leaves the doors open to abuse, but very little real abuse is described that doesn't seem to be a massive stretch. At the very least, nothing explains why or how a governer-appointed board better serves the district's constituents.
Document linked above by @DCBaker.
Page(s)?
The Mouse still makes money off of Swan and Dolphin via the hotels paying the lease to Mickey.Oh no, they hosted a Holiday Party. Wonder which Disney resort they funneled that money to? Oh, it was Swan & Dolphin, not even owned by Disney.
I didn't get very far, but noticed this:I'm still reading it... but the report really doesn't start off on a level footing at all.
That sounds factually incorrect to me. Didn't the law go out of it's way to say that RCID was not being removed and just renamed.On February 27, 2023, Ron DeSantis, the 46th Governor of Florida, signed a bill abolishing the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Fifty-five years had passed since the creation of the special district. During that period of more than a half century, man landed on the moon, the microprocessor and internet were invented, the Soviet Union collapsed, the “global war on terror” began, and artificial intelligence became omnipotent. In short, the world had changed immensely.
That sounds like it is implying that a new district was created, to replace the one abolished above. Which, again, didn't the law specifically say this is not what was being done? Along with, aren't the methods to create a new district well defined and not what was done.In February 2023, the Florida Legislature and Governor DeSantis reconstituted the district as the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (“CFTOD”) and installed a new five-person board.
Both "not the District" and "other property owners" are carrying a lot of implications here. Are their any "other property owners" within the District that are not already restricted to oversight and approval by Disney for anything they want to do? That the "District" would have priorities that are in conflict with their constituents as a goal also comes across as wrong for a government that is accountable to it's constituents.In addition to the structural advantages for Disney of the RCID arrangement, Disney also worked to completely capture not only the RCID Board of Supervisors but all RCID employees—the employees that were charged with overseeing and carrying out the government functions in the District. Disney accomplished this regulatory capture by showering gifts and lavish spending on RCID employees and creating the impression that these employees worked to achieve the interests of Disney, not of the District or other property owners. RCID management and the Board of Supervisors facilitated this capture of RCID employees, and they did not disclose to the employees that the benefits they received were improper.
The problem though is that any report with a modicum of honesty would have had serious negative implications for major donors and constituents.Not to get into the validity on any claim, or how far reality is stretched to fit a narrative, but perhaps the state should have sanctioned this report BEFORE making the changes and pointing to it as the reason for legislature. Honestly, if they did and the governor kept his mouth shut on the real reason why it was done then Disney would probably have 0 chance in a lawsuit. But the governor needed a quick win and wanted to boast how and why he did it for his presidential campaign. Waiting until now for this report would have been pointless to his campaign as it stands.
I'm reading it. It's clear that this was written to paint Disney in as negative a light as possible.
Bringing lots of things to light which were already public knowledge and making them seen illegal and unethical... which they weren't.
What I find hilarious is "potential corruption" paragraph, when the current CFTOD is the entity that's actually corrupt. That's like me being accused of "potential murder" because I accidentally bumped into someone in a hallway.
Exactly. SSDDI just did a quick scan and that's all I saw as well. Wasn't all that covered several dozen./maybe hundred pages ago?
IMHO The Gilded Age last night rang truer and in that episodeI didn't get very far, but noticed this:
That sounds factually incorrect to me. Didn't the law go out of it's way to say that RCID was not being removed and just renamed.
That sounds like it is implying that a new district was created, to replace the one abolished above. Which, again, didn't the law specifically say this is not what was being done? Along with, aren't the methods to create a new district well defined and not what was done.
Both "not the District" and "other property owners" are carrying a lot of implications here. Are their any "other property owners" within the District that are not already restricted to oversight and approval by Disney for anything they want to do? That the "District" would have priorities that are in conflict with their constituents as a goal also comes across as wrong for a government that is accountable to it's constituents.
Assuming the rest of the document plays this loose with facts, what's the point. It might as well be treated as fiction.
Sure, but doesn't Disney get that lease payment regardless if a holiday party is hosted at Swan and Dolphin? The way it was written (Walt Disney Swan and Dolphin, no footnote stating it's owned an operated by a 3rd party) it makes it seem like it was improper way of funneling money back to Disney.The Mouse still makes money off of Swan and Dolphin via the hotels paying the lease to Mickey.
If there is any doubt about the political slant of this report... statements like this should tell you everything you need to know.
"The RCID had inadequate procurement policies that did not ensure the District obtained the best price or highest quality goods and services for its contracts. Instead, the District engaged in race-conscious DEI programs that discriminated against contractors on the basis of race"
I think you're splitting hairs. The first law passed did in fact abolish the district (tho of course we never hit the date before the law was essentially replaced). And the second statement is written in a kind of sequential method that doesn't really invalidate what it says... because reconstituted here can be interpreted to simply mean the repeal of the old law+new changes.. which is what the second law did.I didn't get very far, but noticed this:
That sounds factually incorrect to me. Didn't the law go out of it's way to say that RCID was not being removed and just renamed.
That sounds like it is implying that a new district was created, to replace the one abolished above. Which, again, didn't the law specifically say this is not what was being done? Along with, aren't the methods to create a new district well defined and not what was done.
Not "On February 27, 2023" it didn't. If you play fast and loose with facts in an official report, what's the point. Other facts may be just as fast and loose. If the report reader needs to research them all, what's the point?I think you're splitting hairs. The first law passed did in fact abolish the district (tho of course we never hit the date before the law was essentially replaced).
Had the kept the first law, and then created a new district, sure reconstituted one. But, again, aren't there all kinds of other laws about how to create a special district? Ones that were not modified, overridden, or followed. Slapping a new name on it, while explicitly saying it is not going away, isn't really reconstituted.And the second statement is written in a kind of sequential method that doesn't really invalidate what it says... because reconstituted here can be interpreted to simply mean the repeal of the old law+new changes.. which is what the second law did.
They sent their 'report' to some media outlets in advance. Based on what I've seen on Twitter so far I'm guessing they only sent it to friendly outlets. Has anyone seen reporting on it in the broader media spectrum yet?
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.