i will call the st case which is james sauer versus me and twelve school district council benjamin on behalf of t a private citizen and all of the cases that have existed is issues have almost gone directly to addressing the issues of whether or not employers speaking on a thing about we're not just money i think safety was a key issue and you know i'm getting ahead of myself because i think a moment i think what i want focus on st is that there's an association a lie that mr sharon has as any union member has which is protected by the st amendment which i think clearly was so i would think this should be a cause of action for violating the association awaits which clearly separate from the speech component and i'm not terms that the speech issue that emanated from his position as a bus driver and that therefore as something that he's speaking as a public employee now i think that undergo a savvy them may have been arguments that you could make that would permit that kind of a finding but i think that the supreme court in the lane case limited that broad reading of guy study and basically said unless it's issue of the safety this is judge part can i ask you isn't maintaining you know school buses part of what's the creasing indispensable crew when requisite mr shares responsibility as a bus driver now i honor that's why they have a garage and garage mechanics whose job it is to maintain the safety of the buses all the bus drivers do is drive the buses and if there are issues  and the focus was on the lack of a civilian or an offer that here we are talking about safety number of inspections and something that is of concern to the community to the city since to the students and here the other problem with this listing at this early stage is you don't have factual development to know what conversations were coming all we know from right now is that the player was talking to a bus mechanic and they were talking about among other things the number of times that the report should be made about the safety but  is not part of his responsibilities as a bus driver is capacity the only way he gets to talk to a mechanic is in his capacity as union vice president and therefore he is speaking basically as a private citizen was he is undertaking that dialogue i'd like to move to whether this is a matter of public concern that this seems like a fairly intramural gives you that relates how often and in what manner these problems are reported the complaint doesn't say really much about safety it just really talks about this reporting disagree and why is that a matter of public concern whether this is assuming we limit it right now for the safety issues that to me would be a matter of concern for the parents it is something that could be debated at board meetings on what level  supervision the mechanics and the maintenance should be taking in order to safely i allow students to go back and forth to school it doesn't stop simply on the issue of how many times you report the  basically fast or short concise statement of fact we're not going to have to set forth on higher taste in the course of creating a complaint i think that unlike weintraub where you have a grievance that really there's no an analogy here is that it should be reported every day until the until the issue was very poor except i believe the complaint is that everything relating to the bus should be reported on a daily basis the mechanic didn't say that he wasn't going to refix anything if it wasn't reported daily the issue was we don't need you to remind me every single days of this bus has a perceived safety issue issue no matter what you know do i know what was what was the matter with i believe the issue was how often they should report when there are perceived safety issues for example one of the issues i don't believe is in the complaint but one of the safety issues was about idling of the busses and the noise of the busses while they were idling is not really a safety issue which is part of the reason the district did not need to hear about these every single day because they weren't actually safety issues however taken as true the the allegations are that these were disagreements regarding what the reporting requirements were whether the procedure as an employee was to report every single day or the procedure as an employee was to report the incident one time and let the mechanic fix the issue we all know that there are certainly times where it takes a mechanic longer to fix something that we might like however the mechanic doesn't need to know every single day the district policy and procedure was reported to me once i will fix the issue you don't need to report the same issue to me every day when we have a conversation and the issue is this is purely an employee action is the employee responding to the mechanic there is no analogy analogy for private citizen and going back to that issue the private citizen part having the analogous terms similar term similar to one tribe in this matter and one trump there was agreement filed in this matter there's a per proceeding the that hasn't been completed her proceeding has not been completed there is no decision yet on the per proceeding but the fact is it's the exact same allegations so the exact same allegations are made in the public employment relations board alleging terms and conditions of employment then certainly this matter which has the exact same facts and asked for the exact same relief is taken as an employee seeking matters of employment not speaking as a private citizen and matter of public concern and that speak to the fact that there was a union officer i don't think that the fact that he was a union officer played any role whatsoever there was so you a matter of public concern and it certainly doesn't become a matter as a private citizen the actions that are alleged here are in his capacity as in basra over the actions of reporting on a daily basis what he believes or perceives there to be safety issues or embossed that's the central crux of this entire issue is that it's the employee speaking as an employee to his employer to his coworkers about what he perceives to be safety issues and what he perceives to be the proper procedure for public employee to report it it is very important fair is that he's not affected by the safety issues about strieber he's going to continue to a little further with this lawsuit it sounds to me like the fact joel is judge respectfully i'm of is the the district position is that this as alleged is not a matter of law concern certainly there are circumstances where bus safety would be a public concern but the allegations in the complaint are not that the bus was unsafe and it was a matter of concern in the complaint on the four corners of the page are that he disagreed with how he should inspection i don't believe that is a proper inference to draw in the circumstance because the complaint alleges that he had daily communication with the mechanic so if he's speaking with the mechanic on a daily basis that the plaintiff is aware that the mechanic knows about it the issue is whether or not he has to fill out a daily form a piece of paper as an employee reporting those issues he had daily conversation with the bus mechanic the mechanic said in his capacity as a mechanic i don't need you in your capacity as a bus driver to tell me every day the same issue when we spoke about it previously and we've discussed the need of the parts coming in and the work is being completed on the book the key issue is that this speech owes its entire existence to mr charest position as a bus driver if he was not a bus driver this speech was not exist so therefore it is similar weintraub it's the same thing where an employee alleges there's a perceived safety concern so he filed a grievance and it becomes insubordinate with his actions it's the same thing in this instance where the the speech offense to his position is absurd to his position as a school bus driver if he was well for him being a school bus driver this issue has never arise of the allegations of the can play purely speak then speaking as a bus driver and disagreeing with the district procedure for a bus driver reporting what he perceives to be safety issues there's no allegation  reporting the funny daily basis and then he became insubordinate with his actions with trying to report it in violation of district procedure every single stop he took in the matter every single allegation that he makes purely thing existed to his position as a bus driver and under garcia d and under wind from that is the key element here in addition to that there is no the st time we've ever heard anything relating to this being a matter of public concern is in them is in the brief from mr shara discourse level there's no allegation that the public at large knows or cares for us any evidence whatsoever relating to the process in the procedure for reporting perceived complaint that suggests that safety issues are being sort of left under the rug or were not being addressed your honor no there are not and that is one of the key issues to this matter that's why it is not a matter of public concern the entire allegation is that the school district wasn't addressing them it seems to me the only allegation is about the frequency and manner in which the status of the bust was reported i think that the issue really would not be reports should be highlighted in yellow and have a post next to the the problem and i'm told don't do that you don't need to highlight you don't need hosting that would be a matter public concern and that would be something that would be  amendment protection where is st amendment protection is the subject matter which is safety that is one aspect of it and that aspect certainly would concern not only mr sharon but any parent and is so that here yes i think that there would be subjects like that and board meetings that would be discussed because particularly in the school there's design motivation is is to save money and more the more i don't understand it at all it seems to me that the dispute is wh and there's only going to be factual development that can go forward that will demonstrate whether they are low level and not policy makers or whether they are in fact and whether or not there can be an inference of policy based on just a physician and there's a number of times and the overall action well could show a district policy of attempting to take away i was mr sharon by repeatedly trying to replace as a junior representative and so on but