Connick is controlling precedent, but to show why this is not a close case it is instructive to note that even under the view expressed by the dissent in
Connick from four Members of the Court, the speech here would not come within the definition of a matter of public concern. The dissent in
Connick would have held that the entirety of the questionnaire circulated by the employee “discussed subjects that could reasonably be expected to be of interest to persons seeking to develop informed opinions about the manner in which ... an elected official charged with managing a vital governmental agency, discharges his responsibilities.”
461 U.S., at 163, 103 S.Ct. 1684 (opinion of Brennan, J.). No similar purpose could be attributed to the employee's speech in the present case. Roe's activities did nothing to inform the public about any aspect of the SDPD's functioning or operation. Nor were Roe's activities anything like the private remarks at issue in
Rankin, where one co-worker commented to another co-worker on an item of political news. Roe's expression was widely broadcast, linked to his official status as a police officer, and designed to exploit his employer's image.