Koltermann's reaction to the discovery of hiring discrepancies involving Fairchild was in marked contrast Syth's approach. Koltermann took immediate action after business hours and contacted Superintendent Rose, Syth's immediate supervisor.
Koltermann states that she was interested in ensuring that the District was following its own procedures for hiring and that her after-hours call to Rose was only for that purpose. However, evidence presented at the hearing demonstrates that it was not uncommon for employees to begin working prior to the school board's official approval of their employment, as a result of delays in printing the consent calendar. There is no evidence that prior similar occurrences caused similar concern over proper procedures. Rather, it appears that Koltermann initiated an investigation not into the District's practices, but into the employment of a single individual. Koltermann's protestations that she was indifferent to Fairchild ring hollow given that the only evidence presented at hearing linking Fairchild to Koltermann was Fairchild's activism in the District and at school board meetings. Without exception, every other District witness confirmed that there was a general understanding that Koltermann and other School Board members disliked Fairchild because of her vocal advocacy opposing School Board actions. And when Koltermann got involved in this case, she initiated an unprecedented level of scrutiny as to the employment of a single individual who was known only with regard to her outspokenness against School Board policies. In other words, Koltermann's involvement in the employment (or non-employment) of Fairchild can only be understood in reference to Fairchild's activism.....I also find that anti-union animus was, inextricably, a contributing factor in the District's decision not to hire Fairchild
