er Kuchenreuther's speech can be  "fairly characterized as constituting speech on  a matter of public concern." Connick, 461 U.S. at  146. To involve a matter of public concern,  Kuchenreuther's speech must "relat[e] to any  matter of political, social, or other concern to  the community." Id. Moreover, we examine each  incident separately to determine whether any  touched on a matter of public concern. See Gray  v. Lacke, 885 F.2d 399, 411 (7th Cir. 1989).


25
If this hurdle is cleared, we apply the  Pickering balancing test to determine whether  "the interests of [Kuchenreuther], as a citizen,  in commenting upon matters of public concern"  outweigh "the interests of the State, as an  employer, in promoting the efficiency of the  public services it performs through its  employees." See Connick, 461 U.S. at 142 (quoting  Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568). The failure to  satisfy either prong of the Connick-Pickering test renders Kuchenreuther's section 1983 claim meritless.


26
C.  The February 27, 1997 Bulletin Board Note


27
The district court concluded that  Kuchenreuther's February 27, 1997 note  questioning UPAF payroll contributions failed the  first prong of the Connick-Pickering test because  the note did not address a matter of "public  concern."17 To determine whether speech  addresses a matter of public concern, we look to  the "content, form, and context of a given  statement, as revealed by the whole record."  Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48. Of these three  factors, we have held that content is the most  important factor. See Cliff v. Bd. of Sch.  Comm'rs of the City of Indianapolis, 42 F.3d 403,  409 (7th Cir. 1994).


28
Initially, we note that the content of  Kuchenreuther's bulletin board note is not a  matter of public concern. Whether Milwaukee  police officers make charitable contributions to  the UPAF is not a matter of public concern. Cf.  Balton v. City of Milwaukee, 133 F.3d 1036, 1040  (7th Cir. 1998) (holding that whether city  firefighters contributed to an association was an  issue of "pure