under the first amendment we have a plaintiff who acquired information that was related to the subject matter of her employment however our position is that and we believe that this  what is the speech that is alleged to have been made the basis for retaliation here the alleged speech was made to position is that when question and multiple times during his deposition one of the defendants defendant mixner who is in essence the chief financial officer of west chester university seen meeting on october twenty ninth two thousand and fourteen presenters were consistently now i think we understand you're you're a sexual period here over there really need to get into it further but of education is a government function and some of that reasoning see into his examination of the funding of them as a so that enough itself is a significant change and i also think n leon the commands that each entity that is being considered for immunity go through this detail particular and now this and that is never occurred to our knowledge with respect to that requirement was ignored for twelve years as wrong as defendant makes now or was in that position so their budgets never really got any sort of supervisory review other than its admission to passionately who conspiracy with westchester directed then to essentially change the projected moss so that paper could shell across the border bed westchester had a deficit when the the actual reality was they were putting twenty million of cash in the bank every year and then they eventually come up with a plane and where the violate the pennsylvania constitution it's not about what is are guaranteed a term of a certain number of years and the governor to our knowledge has no peter power and minus a session planned which i find extremely indignant to the commonwealth was was perceiving through the end of the senate bill was introduced by the trustee in westchester that was new making the action again and we haven't been able to find any defendants haven't been able to show us please the court i'm john moore from the pennsylvania attorney general's office and i represent the appellate issues in this case if i could start by clarifying the relationship between the lobby commandment issue and the first amendment issue if we wi then to consolidate other factors and make them more workable with any really three basic factors that had some some parts to it that's correct and that by the way is exactly how the court characterize septa the book of transportation agency here in philadelphia and the control there was quite different in that case it was i believe a fifteen member board of whatever only five members of which were appointed by the governor the other that treats the state system as anything other than a state agency and my friend has not point to anything so that's that's the basic assumption between this case and group and you know me ask you this is one of her core responsibilities as about a director preparing and presenting a budget she was directed by her superiors to do that in front of this committee ober comments of course were made within her organization  but no one can i think contest that what is unclear to me though is that despite this considerable difference of opinion is there anything in the to that suggests who is actually right correct here as opposed to the fact that there was simply a stark dispute over what was appropriate well the short answer to that is no  was the supreme court's very point incarcerated when you're talking about employee speech the employer has the right to control what is said with an employer it's up to the employer to decide if that speech is did speak for him but what i'm taking from all of this including his question so wrong is this speech occurred within what are her duties internally and it this dispute over budgetary practices took place fully within the confines of these important relationships within the university and the university visa exactly the holding of course now there are cases where employees do have job responsibilities that get require them to interact with people outside of their own organization but  context and whether there was any relationship at all to her job responsibilities figures and budgetary requests what why is it that could essentially what she's supposed to do if there's a difference between having a disagreement over a budgetary fact of a person's