as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.” Id. If it is, Meyers’s right to comment on those matters must “be balanced with [HHS’s] interest in ‘promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.’ ” Sparr v. Ward, 306 F.3d 589, 594 (8th Cir.2002) (quoting Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Township High Sch. Dist. 205, 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968)). The magistrate judge found, and we agree, Meyers’s testimony to a court concerning the proper placement of the two foster brothers was a matter of public concern that outweighed the HHS’s interest in promoting efficiency and was therefore protected by the First Amendment. See Bowman v. Pulaski Co. Special Sch. Dist., 723 F.2d 640, 644 (8th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). For purposes of the motion for summary
holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation holding care custody and control of children is a fundamental right holding that what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is a question of law holding question of what constitutes proper care and education of children is area of public concern 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