Recent comments in /f/ColumbiaMD

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.

7

imani_TqiynAZU t1_j9p9asi wrote

Loitering is neither imaginary nor a "crime." However, loitering (meaning "standing around in a certain place for a prolonged amount of time with no purpose") is bad for business. People blame Amazon for the death of enclosed malls. However, strip malls are doing fine (just drive around Columbia to see what I mean). So what is killing enclosed malls? One major thing is large amounts of unruly youth who make it inconvenient or uncomfortable for actual paying customers.

Don't get me wrong, I hung out at malls when I was a teen. However, that was literally during a different millennium, back when mass shootings were rare. This is a different day and requires a different approach.

2

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.

6