Tang, 163 F.3d at 12 (citing O’Connor v. Steeves, 994 F.2d 905, 913 (1st Cir.1993)). a. Public Concern Requirement Whether an employee’s speech addresses a matter of public concern as opposed to her private interest is determined by “the content, form, and context” of the given statements “as revealed by the whole record.” Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48,103 S.Ct. 1684. Speech touches upon a matter of public concern if it can be “fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social or other concern to the community.” Id. at 146, 103 S.Ct. 1684. According to Putnam, his speech at issue includes (1) his protests in his conversation with Chief Felix regarding Felix’s request that Selectman Kelleher receive preferential treatment; (2) Putnam’s report on (D.Mass.2003) (Ponsor, J.) (<HOLDING>). Vasapolli and Bisignani argue, however, that
holding that a dog that was destroyed by the police department was obviously  seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding that statements comprising evidence of possible corruption within a police department are precisely the type of communications that demand strong first amendment protection holding that law enforcement agents speech which raised the possibility of corruption in a public agency is protected under the first amendment holding that a police department is not a person within the meaning of section 1983 holding that communications to the police are conditionally privileged