670 (quoting verbatim the test outlined in Town of Burlington). An entity need not strictly conform to each factor. Instead, “[a]ll relevant factors are to be considered cumulatively, with no single factor being essential or conclusive.” Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n v. Consol. Rail Corp., 580 F.Supp. 777, 778 (D.D.C.1984). 1. Performing a Governmental Function [¶ 24] The investigatory panel organized by the Attorney General was clearly performing a traditional government function-the internal investigation of allegations of prosecutorial and law enforcement misconduct. The fact that an investigation is conducted through an outside source does not necessarily change the public nature of the investigation. See Cyr v. Madawaska Sch. Dep’t, 2007 ME 28, ¶¶ 3-4, 12, 916 A.2d 967, 969, 971 (<HOLDING>); Lewiston Daily Sun, Inc. v. City of Auburn,
holding that an outside investigation of a school matter did not make portions of the resulting report any less a confidential employee evaluation holding that the burden of proving that the employee did not make reasonable efforts is on the defendant holding that records of students evaluation by school psychologist were not subject to the psychologistpatient privilege because the student and his mother did not expect the communications to remain confidential and because the purpose of the interview was to  assess  the students need for special education services not for the purpose of treatment or counseling holding that the judge of compensation claims erred by not requiring the employer and carrier to pay for an evaluation to determine the etiology of claimants medical problem and that it is the purpose of the evaluation not its result that determines its compensability holding search was conducted by school official where school resource officer did not search the bag himself or conduct any investigation on his own and therefore applying the tlo reasonableness standard