Cir.2004). First, a court must determine whether the employee made her comments “as a citizen upon matters of public concern.” Tang, 163 F.3d at 12 (quotation omitted). If the speech involved addresses only issues of personal interest rather than public concern, a First Amendment claim cannot survive absent “the most unusual circumstances” because “a federal court is not the appropriate forum in which to review the wisdom of a personnel decision taken by a public agency allegedly i tern Line Consol. Sch. Dist. 439 U.S. 410, 415-16, 99 S.Ct. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979) for the proposition that First Amendment protection is not lost where an employee discloses official misconduct directly to employer rather than to the public); see also Taylor v. Keith, 338 F.3d 639, 643-46 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Vasapolli and Bisignani’s argument
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 when a person reports cases of possible patient abuse that speech is a matter of public concern holding that an officers report of misconduct by fellow officer is a matter of public concern holding that police reports raising allegations of misconduct by other officers touched upon a matter of public concern evenif drafted within the scope of employment and not disclosed to the media holding that alleged misconduct by public officials particularly by law enforcement officials is matter of public concern