The full report is here.  Among the conclusions:

We do not believe that Dr. Salaita’s political speech renders him unfit for office. Further, we find that civility does not constitute a legitimate criterion for rejecting his appointment, and we recommend that statements made by the Chancellor, President, and Trustees asserting civility as a standard of conduct be withdrawn.

The report also finds that the University violated its own rules and recommends "that the university take responsibility for the financial consequences to Dr. Salaita of its irregular adherence to its own policies and procedures."  (Thanks to Rick Laugesen for the pointer.)

It also recommends that a committee re-evaluate the appointment and, somewhat surprisingly, suggests the committee can consider whether his tweets bear on his "fitness."  There's a useful discussion (under the heading "Fitness") of this aspect of the report here.  This seems to me more dubious, and I note that the Committee itself is forced to defend its suggestion by claiming the circumstances here are (allegedly) sui generis.

I should note that the Committee includes one leading academic freedom (and labor and employment law) expert from the University of Illinois law faculty, Matthew Finkin.