Submitted by zweischeisse t3_11a0vx4 in ColumbiaMD
BornFightingJS t1_j9urndb wrote
Reply to comment by telmar25 in The Library's perspective on the audit report by zweischeisse
Md. Code, Educ. § 23-401:
(a) The governing body of each county may establish, and appropriate an amount to support, a county public library system free from political influence.
(b) Each county public library system shall be governed by a board of trustees. However, a charter county may:
(1) Establish a county library agency and grant it some or all of the powers of a board of trustees; or
(2) Have a board of library trustees, provide for the board's selection, and determine its powers.
Howard County is a charter county. Thus, by having chosen to have a board of trustees, HCLS is not a county library agency.
telmar25 t1_j9vcf6l wrote
Doesn't look to me like it is a state agency. That doesn't mean that it is a county agency subject to being audited by a county auditor, but I don't see in the HCLS report even the original claim that it is a state agency.
BornFightingJS t1_j9vjw9w wrote
Both of the articles that have been written on this topic (here and here) indicate the library system referred to itself as a state agency.
Beyond that, I've provided multiple sources of evidence in this thread.
-I've shown the legal code that establishes the state library board and agency as the governing and directing bodies over all public libraries in Maryland, and sets forth the powers and duties for local library Boards of Trustees (such as that in Howard County).
-I've shown the website for the Maryland State Library Agency, which states as one of its duties to provide oversight of all Maryland public libraries.
-I've shown the legal code for Howard County that has absolutely no regulation, code, policy, or procedure regarding HCLS (but does for other county departments such as DHCD).
-I've shown the County Auditor's fiscal report that indicates HCLS being a separate legal entity and thus subject only to fiscal auditing of the funds it receives from the County.
If an entity's existence is implemented by State statute, if the powers and duties of its governing body (the Board of Trustees) are established, authorized, and delegated by the State, and if the county government has no legal authority or statutory oversight over it beyond the right to audit the funding provided, then that makes it a state agency.
phil_g t1_j9x69s6 wrote
It does seem that the library regards itself as above any oversight by the county. The county auditor's report, however, says the county's Office of Law determined the county did have oversight authority. (And then the County Council directed the auditor to investigate, but personally I'd give more weight to the legal department's opinion than the political officeholders'.)
The auditor's report didn't elaborate on the Office of Law's ruling, so I can't evaluate it myself, but there is at least some legal opinion supporting the county's position. I suppose if they want to pursue this further, it'll have to involve the courts making a determination.
Unusual-Football-687 t1_j9y57e8 wrote
The auditor’s position of what? The charter states an examination of accounts in 213 and 212 provides for a financial audit. I don’t see how that can be taken to mean all this.
phil_g t1_j9y9uwl wrote
The current version of the report on the auditor's website says the county solicitor said section 213 gave them authority for "an audit or examination of the HCLS’ records that contain information that is relevant to the allegations." The allegation was that the person serving as CEO of HCLS and president of the Board of Tustees was using library funds—which primarily come from county taxpayers—for personal purposes.
The report appears to have been revised since its original release. The current report just says the library didn't cooperate with the investigation. The original report, in addition to the whole stakeout thing (which I'm not defending), said the auditor tried to get access to library records and employees but was rebuffed by the library, with a few more details than the current revision. That's what really struck me when reading the report. According to the auditor, the county's lawyers thought this was reasonable, the county council gave a directive to investigate, and the library just refused to cooperate, at least to the degree the auditor felt was necessary to conduct the investigation. (And then the report started bringing up people's apparent race and clothing. I think I see what they meant, but it's not a great look. I'm going to hazard a guess that no Black people reviewed the report before it was published.)
So some lawyers thought some investigation of the library by the county was legal. The details and methods of access to records and employees might need to go to court to be resolved, but there do seem to be legal arguments to be made in the county's favor. (I don't know what those specific arguments are, since the county solicitor's exact words aren't part of the public record.) If the stakeout was, as some people seem to be characterizing it, the auditor hiding in the bushes at the library, waiting for someone to do something nefarious, that's probably not covered by whatever the solicitor wrote. On the other hand, if the stakeout was, "I drove past the library and there was definitely an event that seemed to be closed to the public," that might be more supportable.
BornFightingJS t1_j9ycs9s wrote
We’ve already established that the county auditor does have the right to conduct a financial audit per section 213. In fact, HCLS provides a financial report to the county (and state) each year. This is consistent with a legal entity that must show accountability for the funds it receives.
A financial audit does not involve conducting what amounts to a stake-out. (Which was done before the county solicitor or council gave him permission to investigate.) Nor does it involve interrogations of employees. It involves reviewing financial records.
The original complaint had allegations that amounted to financial, ethical, and HCLS policy violations. The county auditor only had the statutory right to conduct an audit based on the financial aspect of the complaint. It is solely within the purview of the Board of Trustees to investigate ethical and policy violations, as they are the ones who set the policies to begin with. The CEO reports to them.
That’s the core issue here: the county auditor did not stay in his lane, so the HCLS Board of Trustees asserted their authority. As well they should have.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments