before you wanted to know review the case was dismissed on summary judgment motion the issue that we bring the forth court today is whether or not that was improper dismissal particularly as it relates to a first amendment public employment claim wherein his claim that there is retaliation for speech that was considerably protected by the first amendment this was a factual sufficiency issue and a case where there was a motivate where the primary issue was the motivation  motivational inquiry and since we're dealing with a motivational inquiry which should've been examined by the district court our issues such as circumstantial and issue of discriminatory or retaliatory intent when we look at such issues of course we look at things such as t iming the text credibility motive for reprisal interrelationships of the parties and in our harassment to maintain causal links between protected activity and we tolerate conduct in preparing hama now we have to fast forward to february two thousand and three when david grange wife while for dissolution within the divorce file there is a number of allegations that could be characterized as allegations of misconduct against a highly placed public official  twenty second two thousand and three an internet publication known as the due to comment began disclosing the allegations with the divorce file on april twenty fifth two thousand and persecute me two thousand and three again two thousand and three on april twenty fift service revolver directed for a spouse the public officials in the course of those in the course of the newspaper article generated at that time were distancing themselves from the controversy by indicating that this is a civil matter or was simply a personal matter concerned by the allegations particularly as it related to gun play mr commutes and the human resources director for the city of karma called the impressionists and assigns are police officer so he has an understanding of what should be done with police officers and circumstances are such allegations are made mr commutes and gravely concerned about such allegations called an impromptu meeting with the city attorney for the city it's come out and mission leave the chief deputy  named elizabeth poly and later the sitting city attorney robin jenkinson that meeting which occurred in the afternoon of april twenty fifth probably has become the most controversial conversation that ever occurred within the city the children of david gray and as we know the next day following this conversation which project became controversial the next day the news to be on the local newspaper in tacoma ran an article demanding an investigation of david cran within hours david brame if you harbor washington met up with his wife during a transfer i believe a transfer of their children during the taishan issue and murder her with his service revolver and took that gun and shot himself in the head fish complained about some improprieties on wednesday improprieties just a nuisance part is that correct i believe that is correct did not miss fish have any connection to these prior of this this fish data connection to the human resources department i believe the events that she was complaining about occurred were very well seasoned fans but also because investing my question was did you wish she tied up outside counsel to investigate this and what did they conclude i think they also like included that there was no rule violation but there had been a manipulation of the process and mr good i submit is certainly taking the position that that was the win if the so called manipulation of the done but you have to look at the big picture here as facts did occur but if you take them out of context like anything else they become more important then they are done leading to the sort of  investigation and you know the thing about it is i can tell me why these two events should not be viewed in isolation and how their time to loot the series of unfortunate events that you would do just that if you had i think that is the bristly public controversy about this april twenty fifth meeting i watched mr walsh response to it he directs mr cain you're seeing into what i i characterize the number of bizarre meetings where he's being directed to basically change investigation they would if i mr market another highly placed official there would have said look right before this conversation occurred i was talking to mr commutes then and mr connection was indicating that they ought to take us back a badge and gun away then you have a conversation later in the day they and trying to figure out back to this question because i was a complete in my response yes because we have these other things occurring i mean we look back the controversy really blew up in late may geo by june second mr wallace calling mr mr to newton in a isn't participating in a federal investigation the same time they're trying to make a change a story now at that point time it doesn't start you know you've got the summertime but as soon as you get out in the summer two thousand and three then we have as late as october third i believe thirty of the thirty first two thousand and three once again mr walters calling him into the office and having what mr newsome calls this just joining conversation about november and then in february and still there's even more things going on in january twelfth over for you getting a strange letter saying if you don't subjectively believe in our position we want to demo fire you from the cities warriors you have a meeting are on there's an internal affairs interview occurring i'm generally twenty second of four where once again an official investigation is going through these facts then  february twelfth he's doing another interview and then it all went on february twenty sixth despite the allegations of this this coming up in september is being put out on suspension try to present other evidence of disparate treatment you have somebody committing an ethical violations of the city of koma by having a conflict of interest very serious violation and what does he get you gets a written reprimand if you think those are comparable while i think gentleman is because councilman talbert had violated their own rules and was trying to influence to hire his buddy now under council rules mr talbert should have been subject to some form of censor for that the district hard didn't wrongly it was we we made a formal motion to strike no order was entered i know plaintiffs have made the argument that we should have cross appeal there was no order from which to cross appeal and the case what is at issue here and the parties do agree on this is whether there is sufficient evidence of causation as to mr bolton's motives and as the court correctly noted there were a lot of intervening things that occurred upon which mr walton based his opinion in september of two thousand and three let's back up just a little bit you did have the brain shooting there's no question that there was a tremendous amount of media exposure on the april twenty fifth two thousand and three meeting and what was allegedly said and not said and really this isn't about what was actually said during the meeting this is about whether or not that speech mr  comments to the newspaper were a motivating factor in mr walton's decision to terminate his employment and there is absolutely no evidence no competent admissible evidence to make that lea to make that connection mr walton was appointed interim city manager in may he was appointed permanently in july he was in a position as there is testimony in the record at that point in time to say you know what i want to different management team and changes directors then he didn't do so he specifically testified as it's contained in the record that he had given up on the stricken youths in his human resources director he outlined his expectations and he expected the strictne essential element of plaintiff's privatisation case that is the basis upon which the defendants moved in this matter there is an absence of element of evidence to establish causation and the district court agreed with that leave the people who step that never happened i don't know that there's actually testimony in the record to that effect what mr walton testified to was when it was leaked to the media i don't care who leaked it the story is out there it's on the front page  past point and i know that the plaintiffs repeatedly state that there were no rules violated and technically absolutely the city of tacoma civil service system is governed by law one of our laws requires us to maintain that process impartially there was no question that mr can use and have ms brown reset the past point on a competitive civil service exam for the express purpose of allowing a candidate who had previously fail publicly stated i think somebody is lying and i've known robin jenkins and for many many years and i find her to have the utmost integrity by that he certainly implied that he found news jenkinson his version of the events more credible of two thousand and three and that's when mr walton was appointed interim city manager he had been on the city council yes he had been deputy city manager and in conjunction with mr corpus and then mr purposes employment was terminated in violated a rule your honor i don't believe there's anything in the record to that i will tell you that there is testimony in the record that in conjunction with the past point investigation mr walton was provided legal counsel from the city attorney's  sent to provide mr walton assistance because i had no involvement with any of that my my role in the city attorney's office is limited solely to litigation assisting senior pastor she is the city manager based his decision to fire mr commutes and on to intervening and wholly unrelated offense mr commutes and was the city official charged with protecting the integrity of the city's hiring process this is happening in a time period where the city of tacoma is under tremendous criticism for the process hiring that is that we're employed with david greene and in his capacity as a city manager the city manager learn of not one but two separate instances where mr can you just try to manipulate the hiring process to his own hands the first one was brought to his attention at september he immediately tried to retain pierce county to comes forward and indicates that mr putin tried to enlist his aides in manipulating a process to ensure that a candidate didn't survive it at that point the city manager has to credible and seri misconduct against his h r director he could amount admittedly he hired actually he didn't he task the student during examiner he took a totally hands off approach and said to the city hearing examiner i want you to hire outside investigator i want you to look into this i want you to screen me and i want you to report directly to the city council the investigator was from super's brewster and she came back and said yes he tried to pack the panel to ensure that a candidate didn't make it  director in appropriately manipulated the hiring process the city manager gets to say that that's not ok and there is no evidence no evidence to conclude or suggest that got decision was based on