vote. Ellins stated in his declaration that he led the vote “due to Chief Diaz’s lack of leadership, wasting of citizens’ tax dollars, hypocrisy, expensive paranoia, and damaging inability to conduct her job.” Ellins echoed that contention in his deposition testimony, asserting that the no-confidence vote stemmed from “how upset members [of the union] were on how Chief Diaz conducted herself as a Chief.” Diaz also misconstrues the rationale behind Connick. The dispositive fact in Con-nick was not that the vote resulted from a personnel grievance, but rather that it resulted from an individual personnel grievance. Our precedent instructs that collective personnel grievances raised by unions may be matters of public concern. See Lambert v. Richard, 59 F.3d 134, 136-37 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). That was also the upshot of our decision in
holding speech does not generally touch on matter of public concern as that requirement has been interpreted where its aim is to air or remedy grievances purely of a personal nature holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern holding that where library employee told city council that library was mismanaged and that employees were devoid of zest the speech was on a matter of public concern because she spoke as a union representative not as an individual and  she described departmental problems not private grievances holding that the plaintiffs speech was not constitutionally protected because it was made in his official capacity and there was simply no evidence that he was speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern holding that an employer was justified in demoting plaintiff after she returned from maternity leave because plaintiff could not rebut the employers evidence that she was having performance problems before she went on leave and that additional performance problems were discovered while she was on leave