of the reasons behind the no-conf inley, which involved a union representative police officer who discussed police salaries at a city council meeting and in a television interview. 705 F.2d at 1112. We held that the subject matter of his speech was a matter of public concern because salaries — the subject of the classic personnel grievance — affect the city’s ability to attract and retain qualified police personnel, and “the competency of the police force is surely a matter of great public concern.” Id. at 1114. Because the officer in McKinley spoke as a union representative and expressed the concerns of the police union as a whole, the issue became a matter of public concern. Other courts have made this point expressly. See Fuerst v. Clarke, 454 F.3d 770, 774 (7th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); see also Boddie v. City of Columbus, 989 F.2d
recognizing confusion caused by prima facie language holding that independent contractor claiming denial of public contract because of political affiliation was not protected by first amendment holding that comments made by deputy sheriff as president of sheriffs union were prima facie protected by the first amendment as a contribution to political debate holding that independent contractor claiming termination of contract because of political affiliation not protected by first amendment holding judges offensive comments made on television show fully protected by first amendment