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 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.

Wait, that's a thing? Which Dunkin location are we discussing? Whenever I order for drive through pickup at Oakland Mills I wait in line like everyone else.