[flagged]
Most public libraries follow professional collection development standards that try to serve their entire diverse community including families who want those books available. It's a tough balance, but the goal is usually having something for everyone rather than letting any single group determine what everyone else can access.
The community seems to have spoken pretty clearly by successfully defending their library. Sometimes the loudest voices aren't representative of the broader sentiment.
Books that aren't being circulated frequently enough get weeded and removed from the collection, usually once or twice a year. Moreover, if books are requested frequently from other branches, or have long hold times, then that volume will typically be added to a collection.
And why stop at removing them? Burn them!
Whoa, so much smoke! Better repeatedly wave it away from my chest with an outstretched, downward-facing palm!
Libraries need to follow constitutional principles and serve their whole community, not just the loudest subset. The broader community clearly supported keeping their award-winning library intact.
1. Book banning/burning is really bad (duh).
2. The worst book banners/burners throughout history have employed the same justifications as you now employ.
To the question about accountability: Who knows, but it isn't as important as avoiding book banning/burning.