phil_g t1_j9x69s6 wrote on February 25, 2023 at 5:01 AM

Reply to comment by BornFightingJS in The Library's perspective on the audit report by zweischeisse

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 on February 25, 2023 at 12:26 PM

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 on February 25, 2023 at 1:17 PM

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 on February 25, 2023 at 1:45 PM

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.