With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the reasons behind the no-conf inley, which involved a union representative police officer who discussed police salaries at a city council meeting and in a television interview. 705 F.2d at 1112. We held that the subject matter of his speech was a matter of public concern because salaries — the subject of the classic personnel grievance — affect the city’s ability to attract and retain qualified police personnel, and “the competency of the police force is surely a matter of great public concern.” Id. at 1114. Because the officer in McKinley spoke as a union representative and expressed the concerns of the police union as a whole, the issue became a matter of public concern. Other courts have made this point expressly. See Fuerst v. Clarke, 454 F.3d 770, 774 (7th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); see also Boddie v. City of Columbus, 989 F.2d

A: holding that independent contractor claiming denial of public contract because of political affiliation was not protected by first amendment
B: holding that independent contractor claiming termination of contract because of political affiliation not protected by first amendment
C: recognizing confusion caused by prima facie language
D: holding that comments made by deputy sheriff as president of sheriffs union were prima facie protected by the first amendment as a contribution to political debate
D.