While the act of demoting or firing a city employee or official is not protected activity, city council members’ votes and debates are protected speech under the Anti-SLAPP statute.  Here, a city treasurer sued city council members individually (and not the city) for acts taken to deprive her office of most of its functions and salary.  Held, the claim against individual council members had to be based on their protected speech since they had no power individually to take adverse employment actions against plaintiff.  Also, plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim had to be based on the same protected speech since the only non-speech acts she alleged–removing her from the dais at city council meetings–was not outrageous conduct sufficient to sustain an IIED claim.