[the Fifth] has held that 'it is clear that only a portion of a communication need address a matter of public concern' ”). 123 . 901 F.2d 456 (5th Cir.1990). 124 . Id. at 460-67. 125 . Docket no. 49, Andrade's Declaration, Exhibit 14, at 2. 126 . Docket no. 44, at 2. 127 . Docket no. 49, Andrade’s Declaration, Exhibits 31-32 128 . Id. Andrade's Declaration, at ¶¶ 52-65. 129 . Id. Andrade’s Declaration, at ¶ 52. 1 that a city could be held liable for a persis ; and Doe v. Rains County ISD, 66 F.3d 1402, 1407 (5th Cir.1995). 167 . See Turner, 915 F.2d at 136. The focus of inquiry is on the particular task or duty performed by the official and his or her authority to exercise final control over the performance of that task or duty. See Brady v. Fort Bend County, 145 F.3d at 699-700, (<HOLDING>). 168 . See Colle, 981 F.2d at 244; Turner, 915
holding county liable along with sheriff thomas for an attorneys fee award even though the county was not named in the suit and was denied an opportunity to intervene because sheriff thomass actions under article 6869 represented county policy holding that a newly elected county sheriff was responsible under applicable texas law for the decision not to rehire sheriffs deputies who had campaigned for the ousted incumbent holding that in south carolina sheriffs and deputies are state officials holding elected constable not the final policymaker and therefore unconstitutional acts of elected county official not chargeable against the county holding that sheriffs deputies were not employed in the service of marshall county and that the county personnel board therefore had no jurisdiction to review their respective terminations ordered by the sheriff