It is a shame that she was fired, but I disagree as to why. The level of documentation of emails, tasks, daily activities is consistent with when the library is concerned with the person's performance. I worked at a state university for a while and we had to do this for an employee so that we would have a case if we let her go right at the 6 month mark when the probabtion period would have ended. The documentation they have on her is countless little things and some not so little things such as filling in time cards wrong. The consistent trail along with the 5 of 10 at her 3 month review leads me to believe she is twisting the case. Many people that apply for government positions and are let go before their probation period put up a huge stink, seek publicity, sue, etc. I think she would have been fired even if she weren't a whistle blower. The law says that you can't be fired for being a whistle blower. It does not say that if you are a whistle blower you are immune from being fired when a case has been built against you for 5 months before the incident.
By the way, i agree she did the right thing, and that many libraries may be too lienent. I think that the library system needs to be evaluated. However, I think the issue that should be evaluated is whether they allow *advertiser censored* to be viewed and how they handle it. I think the library built a strong case against the fired librarian long before the incident.
