(Des Moines, IA) Iowa Governor Terry Branstad yesterday released the following statement in response to the report, found here, issued by former Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Lou Lavorato following his independent review, which concluded the governorâs office in no way interfered with the investigation into former Iowa Department of Criminal Investigation Agent Larry Hedlund, and that his dismissal was not a product of retaliation by the governorâs office:
âThis independent review was thorough, with full access to all documents and individuals, and complete cooperation from my office and administration. This report demonstrates that my office in no way interfered with, nor directed, the investigation into Larry Hedlund.
âThis report conclusively shows allegations about the governor, governorâs office and retaliation are absolutely false.
âI want to thank former Chief Justice Lou Lavorato for generously giving his time and hard work to conduct this independent review, because I believe Iowans deserve to know the truth from an objective source.â
Hedlund when fired accused Governor Branstad of retaliation since he clocked the Governorâs vehicle, driven by an Iowa State Patrol officer, going 90 miles per hour. The driver later received a ticket.
In the report, former Chief Justice Lou Lavorato states:
As far as the Governorâs office is concerned, I interviewed everyone employed in his office, including the Governor and Lt. Governor. From these interviews and the documentation that I reviewed, I conclude no one in the Governorâs office directed or interfered with the Internal Affairsâ investigation or took part in the decision to terminate Mr. Hedlundâs employment.
The Governorâs position, which I determined was painstakingly followed by his staff, was to have a âhands offâ approach to the investigation and decision to terminate Mr. Hedlundâs employment.
âŠ
Moreover, there was nothing in the Internal Affairsâ report or documents and electronic messages that the DPS provided me that indicated any one in the Governorâs office had directed or interfered with the investigation or took part in the decision to terminate Mr. Hedlundâs employment.
âŠ
Moreover, I found no direct evidence that those who took part in the investigation and in the decision to terminate Mr. Hedlundâs employment retaliated against him for his activities in reporting the speeding violation.
