With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that when a person reports cases of possible patient abuse that speech is a matter of public concern
B: holding that an officers report of misconduct by fellow officer is a matter of public concern
C: 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
D: 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
D.