Submitted by zweischeisse t3_11a0vx4 in ColumbiaMD
Comments
BornFightingJS t1_j9qy1kc wrote
@phil_g The Library Board of Trustees is the governing body to whom the HCLS CEO and staff report. This report is from them, not the CEO. They weren’t investigating themselves; they were investigating the employee(s) for whom they are responsible for overseeing.
Regarding the HCLS’ reluctance to cooperate: the CEO cooperated fully with the Auditor’s initial questions, though by statute she wasn’t obligated or required to. Then he took it further with the weird stake-out and subsequent interrogations instead of handing this over to the Board of Trustees. Given that the HCLS is a state agency and not subject to the county auditor, if I’d been facing such aggressive tactics from someone with no jurisdiction over me, I’d tell them to pound sand, too.
telmar25 t1_j9vf6pm wrote
It's probably much ado about mostly nothing. They probably should not have closed 4 hours early to host this event, but they did have a plausible reason to host it; it was not just somebody needing space for their private sorority event who didn't want to pay, but one in a series of community outreach events. The tactics the auditor used were overly aggressive... however, the information the auditor was fed was not right either and it is hard for me to tell whether the tactics were intended to get to the bottom of it or score a political win. Probably just a polite ask for information would have closed this issue without a problem.
BornFightingJS t1_j9vkci1 wrote
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I suspect the political win is the likely story.
i_live_in_maryland t1_j9qz4cd wrote
It's obvious from the report that HCLS thinks they are a state agency and not subject to county audits, but that's really not clear. The county pays over 80% of the library budget. I would be surprised if the county charter and other laws allowed them to substantially fund an organization but not be allowed to audit it. It's actually a complex legal issue.
BornFightingJS t1_j9r1hv6 wrote
The HCLS IS a state agency. This is not ambiguous.
The county has the right to conduct financial audits due to provision of funds to the library. (The statutory wording is “examination or audit of the accounts.”) That’s it. The Board of Trustees would be responsible for determining if misuse of facilities occurred.
Staking out an event intended to celebrate a Black civic organization’s exhibit at the library, because some racist asshole assumed the Black CEO was a member having a private party, is not what a financial audit looks like.
i_live_in_maryland t1_j9rdtby wrote
> The HCLS IS a state agency. This is not ambiguous.
Can you point to any source other than these report which explains this? I have tried and I can't find any kind of explanation for how the 24 individual county library systems are "state agencies". I understand they are chartered and run differently than county executive agencies, but that doesn't make them a state agency.
So what does?
BornFightingJS t1_j9riiuh wrote
They are under the purview of the Maryland State Library Agency. https://casetext.com/statute/code-of-maryland/article-education/division-iv-other-education-provisions/title-23-libraries/subtitle-1-state-library-agencies/section-23-106-powers-and-duties-of-state-library-agency
i_live_in_maryland t1_j9s69wy wrote
The MSLA is a state agency, that doesn't mean that things under their purview are state agencies too.
For example, the county school system is under the purview of the MD state board of ed, that doesn't make the county schools a state agency.
BornFightingJS t1_j9td1zu wrote
That’s exactly what that means.
Here’s how you know: the policies and operations of both HCPSS and HCLS are not governed by or under the purview of the Howard County Council or County Executive, but rather, they are each governed by their own oversight boards, each of which is under the purview of (and reports to) their respective state agencies (the MSDE and MSLA, respectively).
telmar25 t1_j9sqhzw wrote
I am wondering the same. I also did not see any source explaining this. It would be highly unusual in my experience for a county library system to be considered a “state agency”. The State Library is a state agency. But a county library system that takes some guidance and funding from the state is not de facto a state agency, just as a local school system that takes guidance and funding from the state Department of Education is not a state agency. This link explaining the governing structure of Maryland county libraries makes no reference to them being state agencies of any kind. I’m quite familiar with this relationship in Pennsylvania, having said that, it is possible that Maryland could be different, just have not seen anything that says it is. I’m wondering whether this is just a creative legal argument.
BornFightingJS t1_j9urndb wrote
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.
BornFightingJS t1_j9usrjz wrote
Additionally, page 42 of the Howard County Auditor's 2022 Comprehensive Financial Report indicates HCLS (as well as HCPSS and two other organizations) being a separate legal entity from the County. They are included in the report only due to their receipt of funding from the County.
This is also why you'll find nothing in the Howard County code governing the HCLS and its operations.
https://cc.howardcountymd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=n3VwAQoZUnY%3d&tabid=132&portalid=0
zweischeisse OP t1_j9pmjka wrote
I agree the whole thing seems very strange. I don't contend to know the legal situation here around who has oversight of what, but the library clearly thinks the council has no legal grounds to audit them directly (but a 3rd party auditor would be allowed), while the council does. Sounds like a judge needs to weigh in, which is unfortunate because all this does is waste more taxpayer money.
It also sounds like the library CEO, who was inaccurately portrayed by both the original complainant and the auditor, did her best to answer the auditor's questions in spite of the auditor not being cooperative in response.
It seems like a lot of the problems in this situation could have been solved by the "investigators" who "staked out" the event attempting to actually enter the event rather than drawing conclusions from the parking lot. If they were turned away, it's not a public event and there is something worth investigating. If they were allowed in, the event is perfectly fine by library policy.
i_live_in_maryland t1_j9qzkeo wrote
> It seems like a lot of the problems in this situation could have been solved by the "investigators" who "staked out" the event attempting to actually enter the event rather than drawing conclusions from the parking lot. If they were turned away, it's not a public event and there is something worth investigating. If they were allowed in, the event is perfectly fine by library policy.
God yes, it seems like whoever was on this "stake out" was having some covert agent fantasy instead of just figure out what was going on.
BUT what is missing from the HCLS's report is any mention of the 4-hour early closing. (I read kinda fast, maybe I missed it.) My guess is this is actually a policy loophole, there's probably no policy that actually prohibits this. But it's so strange, I can't imagine the library agreeing to do that for other events.
zweischeisse OP t1_j9r57pt wrote
Actually the library said the early closure is the only concern of merit from the audit report and they plan on reviewing their policies on that topic.
i_live_in_maryland t1_j9rdf10 wrote
ok, thanks, I see it. It's a super brief mention for it being kind of the only thing they substantiated in the report. I think that's where the "they investigated themselves" is showing through. Anyone else doing an investigation would probably want to, like, draw attention to what they found.
BornFightingJS t1_j9r1r60 wrote
>> BUT what is missing from the HCLS's report is any mention of the 4-hour early closing. (I read kinda fast, maybe I missed it.) My guess is this is actually a policy loophole, there's probably no policy that actually prohibits this. But it's so strange, I can't imagine the library agreeing to do that for other events.
That is covered in the HCLS report.
catsinskirts t1_j9rlagp wrote
Is it? The only part I see addressing the early closure is this:
>In response to the inquiry regarding where HCLS staff went after the Central Branch closed at 2:00 p.m. on October 7, 2022, the committee believes this is a legitimate area for further review of HCLS policies, and recommends that the Board do so.* The committee was informed by staff that HCLS followed its standard practice for early branch closures in this instance, giving staff the option of working at another branch for the remaining hours of the day or expending accumulated leave for the remaining portion of the day. However, the committee recommends a review by the Board of whether the same policy should apply both to Library events such as Evening in the Stacks and sanctioned events by outside organizations. The committee has identified no costs incurred by HCLS for this event, other than ongoing fixed costs of operating the Central Branch building such as utility costs, etc., but recommends that the Board further review whether employee leave was granted that would not otherwise have been granted, had the outside organization event not been held.
*In light of this recommendation, the Board intends to examine current HCLS policies with regard to early closure of HCLS facilities for events, and determine whether any modification to these policies is needed.
It looks like they're saying that the policy around employee leave for early closures for outside events will be examined.
They're not addressing if the early closure itself is an issue. Which is a bit frustrating because that's the part of this I think actually affects the community. I don't care if there's an event in the library after hours, but closing 4 hours early means the people the Central branch serves were denied access to regular library services for the sake of this event.
Is closing early for outisde events something HCLS does? (I only know of them doing it for Evening in the Stacks, but that's the library's own fund raiser, not an outside event).
HCLS's report doesn't really answer that question. It says:
>In response to the inquiry regarding other partnership events or gatherings held at HCLS facilities after normal operating hours, and/or which caused early branch closures, HCLS staff has provided the committee with the list of such events that is attached hereto as Exhibit B
But Exhibit B, is actually just "a list of organizations that have had access to branches before regular opening times or after regular closing times," which doesn't tell us if the library closed early to accommodate these organizations.
Please let me know if there's something I'm missing, because I'd really like to understand this.
BornFightingJS t1_j9rmwni wrote
A key piece of information here is this: AKA was not just some “outside organization” having an event in a meeting room at the library because they needed a place to do it. Rather, AKA launched an exhibit in the Equity Resource Center the week of the event. This was considered a partnership event as a result, and the event was held in the Equity Resource Center.
The library can (and does) close early for its own events, as you noted.
catsinskirts t1_j9s14gg wrote
Thank you for clarifying that! The exhibit is important context.
I'm not sure if it being a partnership event means it's the same as closing for their fundraiser though. I can remember other partnership events (mostly HCPSS related) and other exhibits, but I don't recall the library closing early for any of them or intentionally closing early for anything other than the annual fundraiser.
BornFightingJS t1_j9tab1e wrote
The HCLS Board of Trustees is the governing body of the HCLS. They set and enforce the policies governing the operation of the library. They investigated the situation and found that this was within policy and not without precedent.
Respectfully, why is that not good enough?
phil_g t1_j9p5h95 wrote
"We investigated ourselves and determined that we didn't do anything wrong."
The whole thing seems weird and now outsized. The library gets most of its funds from the county but flat out refused to cooperate with the audit. They basically said, "Just trust us; we're fine." That's … not great accountability for county funds.
But the auditor's report had weird wording around people's race. I think, reading it charitably, the auditor merely meant to draw the causal connections: "The library was closed to the public for a private event (at a time it would normally have been open); the event was for a historically-Black sorority whose members wear white dresses to formal events; there were Black women in white dresses going in; therefore the only people who entered the library were members of the private organization." But they didn't explicitly mention about half of that, so they came off as bringing up race out of nowhere. On top of that, from my perspective the issue is with the library's use of county resources, not the particular organization holding the event, so a lot of the details about the sorority don't really seem relevant.
The auditor really needs to do a better job of approaching race, especially in a county as diverse as Howard. But the library's behavior still seems off to me.