requirement. Hadley has presented undisputed evidence that in her reorganization of the county auditor’s office, her top assistants serve confidential and policy-making roles. Specifically, in the restructured office Goempel and Milliken perform such functions as speaking on Hadley’s behalf at official meetings and in communications with the public and government officials; managing the office in her absence; helping to establish policies within the office and supervising other employees; controlling the lines of communication to Hadley; and exercising decision-making authority over substantive matters handled by her office. These functions are similar to the kinds of positions this Court repeatedly has found to be subject to patronage dismissals. See, e.g., Feeney, 164 F.3d 311 (<HOLDING>); Smith, 117 F.3d at 967-71 (holding that the
holding that under separation of powers the legislative department makes the laws the executive department carries the laws into effect and the judicial department interprets and declares the laws holding that where department of transportation regulations did not require department officials to enforce vehicle regulations the departments decision not to do so was discretionary 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 company administering a selfinsurance program for the department of transportation was an agent for the department and was therefore immune from suit holding that because the department of revenue is subordinate to the board of tax review in the decision making process the department is not an adversely affected or aggrieved party having standing to petition for judicial review of the boards order reversing a decision of the department