have particularly focused ’on the extent to which the content of the employee speech was calculated to disclose wrongdoing or inefficiency or other malfeasance on the part of governmental officials in the conduct of their official duties.” Id. at 1445; see also Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 857 (10th Cir.1989) (finding letter written by police officer dealt with matter of public concern because it alleged, inter aha, misuse of public funds). Lancaster’s statements were self-serving. The comments were not intended to disclose evidence of wrongdoing, inefficiency, or malfeasance on the part of the defendants. Because plaintiffs grievances related to an internal personnel dispute, the content was only of private concern. See Vukadinovich v. Bartels, 853 F.2d 1387 (7th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Considering the context and content of the
holding that private complaints by public employee that his responsibilities were being lessened and his recommendations were not being followed were at least for the most part not on a matter of public concern recognizing that school districts may not enter agreements which are inconsistent with state law holding that plaintiffs failure to object to the improper comments of defendant during closing arguments resulted in waiver of plaintiffs right to argue the issue on appeal because the trial court was not given an opportunity to rule on the issue holding that plaintiffs published comments regarding school districts decision to decline renewal of coaching contract were an expression of plaintiffs private dissatisfaction with his termination and not an issue of public concern recognizing application of sovereign immunity to school districts