Unlikely since she was exonerated.
eace
[h=3]Final Report of Alaska Personnel Board[/h] On November 3, 2008, the Alaska Personnel Board concluded its probe and determined that Palin had not violated ethics laws, contradicting the earlier investigations. Tim Petumenos, the lawyer hired by the Board to conduct the probe, was quoted as stating in his final report, "There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters."[SUP]
[6][/SUP] The Personnel Board report also dismissed Monegan's request for a hearing and recommended that the police union (PSEA) amended complaint be dismissed.[SUP]
[4][/SUP] The Summary and Recommendations of the Petumenos report are as follows:
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. There is no probable cause to believe that Governor Palin violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act by making the decision to dismiss Department of Public Safety Commissioner Monegan and offering him instead the position of Director of the Alcohol Beverage Control Board.
2. There is no probable cause to believe that Governor Palin violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in any other respect in connection with the employment of Alaska State Trooper Michael Wooten.
3. There is no basis upon which to refer the conduct of Governor Palin to any law enforcement agency in connection with this matter because Governor Palin did not commit the offenses of Interference with Official Proceedings or Official Misconduct.
4. There is no probable cause to believe that any other official of state government violated any substantive provision of the Ethics Act.
5. There is no legal basis or jurisdiction for conducting a "Due Process Hearing to Address Reputational Harm" as requested by former Commissioner Walter Monegan.
6. The Amended Complaint by the PSEA should be dismissed.
7. Independent Counsel recommends that the appropriate agency of State government address the issue of the private use of e-mails for government work and revisit the record retention policies of the Governor's Office.
These findings differ from those of the Branchflower Report because Independent Counsel has concluded the wrong statute was used as a basis for the conclusions contained in the Branchflower Report. The Branchflower Report misconstrued the available evidence and did not consider or obtain all of the material evidence that is required to properly reach findings in this matter.[SUP]
[4][/SUP]
