the majority also emphasizes that Kemp, in the letter to Senator Armstrong, sought help in her dispute with CSU rather than to communicate a racial and sexual discrimination problem to the public. Maj. op. at 504-505. Kemp’s primary purpose of alerting Senator Armstrong to her alleged problems with racial and sexual discrimination at work and during the grievance proceedings, however, does not resolve the balancing of interests in the State’s favor. The fact that the employee has a personal stake in the controversy that is the subject of the speech in question does not mean that the State’s interest in fulfilling its responsibilities to the public outweighs the employee’s interests in commenting upon matters of public concern. Rode v. Del-larciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1202 (3d Cir. 1988) (<HOLDING>). In addition, in balancing Kemp’s interests
holding that an employee suspended because of the employees participation in an interview concerning her employment problems with a state police department did not impermissibly affect the states interest in the efficiency and performance of the police department and that the employee therefore was entitled to damages arising from the suspension holding that a state department of transportation employee was subject to patronage dismissal where his duties included serving as a liaison between the director of the department and the general public and other government officials including representing the department at meetings and conferences holding that the pittsburgh police department did not illegally terminate an officers hla benefits and that the police department was entitled to a subrogation interest against the officers thirdparty settlement holding that the company administering a selfinsurance program for the department of transportation was an agent for the department and was therefore immune from suit holding that a police department is not a person within the meaning of section 1983