Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout999 YakinSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 In Re: Mary Yakin File Docket: 95- 005 -C2 Date Decided: 2/15/96 Date Mailed: 3/1/96 Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair Austin M. Lee, Vice Chair Roy W. Wilt John R. Showers Rev. Joseph G. Quinn Boyd E. Wolff The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding a possible wrongful use of act and breach of confidentiality under the Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, 65 P.S. §401 et sea., by the above -named "Complainant." Written notice of the specific allegation(s) was served at the commencement of the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served a Findings Report, which constituted the Investigative Division's Complaint against the "Complainant." An Answer was filed and oral argument was held. The record is complete. This is the determination of the Commission. The above -named "Complainant," who filed the original Complaint with the Commission, or the "Subject," the person against whom the original Complaint was filed, may appeal this determination to the Commission. Any such appeal must be received at the Commission within thirty days of the date of mailing of this determination. A Complainant or Subject who files an appeal shall be directed and required to show cause why this determination should not become final. 51 Pa.Code §25.4. The files in this case will remain confidential during the above appeal period in accordance with Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §408(h). Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Law is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, 65 P.S. §409(e). Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. If the final determination of the Commission is that the Complainant has wrongfully used the Act, then pursuant to Section 10.1(c) of Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §410.1(c), the Commission shall provide the name and address of the Complainant to the Subject, together with a copy of the final determination of the Commission. kin, 95- 005 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION• That Mary Yakin, in her capacity as a complainant in Case No. 94- 011 -C2 violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989) when she filed complaints alleging that John Hanlon, a former township commissioner in Wilkins Township, Allegheny County, violated the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law when such complaints were filed in a grossly negligent manner without basis in law or fact; without probable cause and made primarily for a purpose other than that of reporting a violation of the Act and /or when she publicly disclosed or caused to be disclosed that the complaints had been filed, when such disclosure did not fall within one of the exceptions provided within the Ethics Act. Section 10.1 Wrongful use of act (a) A person who signs a complaint alleging a violation of this act against another is subject to liability for wrongful use of this act if: (1) the complaint was frivolous, as defined by this act, or without probable cause and made primarily for a purpose other than that of reporting a violation of this act; or (2) he publicly disclosed or caused to be disclosed that a complaint against a person had been filed with the commission. 65 F.S. 510.1(a). Section 8. Investications by the commission (k) As a general rule, no person shall disclose or acknowledge, to any other person, any information relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or petition for reconsideration which is before the commission. However, a person may disclose or acknowledge to another person matters held confidential in accordance with this subsection when the matters pertain to any of the following: yakia, 95- 005 -C2 Page 3 II. FINDINGS: A. PLEADINGS: (1) final orders of the commission as provided in subsection (11); (2) hearings conducted in public pursuant to subsection (g); (3) for the purpose of seeking advice of legal counsel; (4) filing an appeal from a commission order; (5) communicating with the commission or its staff, in the course of a preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or petition for reconsideration by the commission; (6) consulting with a law enforcement official or agency for the purpose of initiating, participating in or responding to an investigation or prosecution by the law enforcement official or agency; (7) testifying under oath before a governmental body or a similar body of the United States of America; (8) any information, records or proceedings relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or petition for reconsideration which the person is the subject of; or (9) such other exceptions as the commission, by regulation, may direct. 65 P.S. §408(k). 1. On December 19, 1994, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received a signed complaint alleging that min, 95- 005 -C2 Page 4 Mary Yakin violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989) . 2. Upon review of the complaint by the Director of Investigations a recommendation was made to the Executive Director to commence a preliminary inquiry. 3. At the direction of the Executive Director, the Investigative Division initiated a preliminary inquiry on January 13, 1995. 4. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days. 5. On March 20, 1995, a letter was forwarded to Mary Yakin, by the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission informing her that a complaint against her was received by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation was being commenced. a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. P 016 239 168. b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Mary Yakin, with a delivery date of March 24, 1995. 6. The full investigation was commenced at the direction of the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission. 7. The Investigative Complaint was mailed to the Respondent on September 1, 1995. 8. Mary Yakin is a private citizen and resident of Wilkins Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. a. Yakin's mailing address is 35 Crestview Drive, East Pittsburgh, PA 15112. 9. On February 7, 1994, a Sworn Compliant was filed with the State Ethics Commission by Mary Yakin, alleging that former Wilkins Township Commissioner, John Hanlon, violated provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law (Act 9 of 1989) . a. The complaint was notarized on February 1, 1994. b. The complaint was executed by Mary Yakin, 35 Crestview Drive, East Pittsburgh, PA 15112. 10. All correspondence, documents, and other official items received by the State Ethics Commission are time stamped on the day they are received. Makin, 95- 005 -C2 Page 5 11. The complaint was received by the State Ethics Commission on February 7, 1994. a. The complaint was time stamped upon receipt by the State Ethics Commission. b. The time stamp indicates "State Ethics Commission Feb 7 9:44 AM '94 ". 12. The complaint that was received by the State Ethics Commission from Mary Yakin, was Form SEC -3 REV. 5/90. a. The form contained instructions that included the following statement: Important - any person filing a complaint with the State Ethics Commission should be aware of the following provisions of the Ethics Law: Section 8 (k) as a general rule, no person shall disclose or acknowledge, to any other person, any information relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or petition for reconsideration which is before the Commission. Section 9 (e) Any person who violates the confidentiality of a Commission proceeding pursuant to section 8, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $1,000.00 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or be both fined and imprisoned. b. This is the standard form utilized by the Ethics Commission for sworn complaints. 13. Yakin's complaint against former Wilkins Township Commissioner John Hanlon, alleged that Hanlon attended the 1993 PSATC Convention at taxpayer expense, even though he had been defeated in the May, 1993, Primary, and was the current Secretary /Treasurer and a past President of the PSATC. a. Other information in the complaint included: - Hanlon's request to be Township Secretary for one dollar /year; -and even though he was cited by the Ethics Commission for receiving illegal medical premiums, he lobbied for amnesty and for official's health insurance. Yakin, 95- 005 -C2 Page 6 b. Accompanying the complaint were the following documents: - Newspaper articles regarding the proposal to give local politicians insurance benefits at taxpayer expense; and Hanlon's appointment as Township Secretary at a rate of $1.00 /year; - copies of Hanlon's convention expense voucher accompanied by a hotel receipt for the 1993 PSATC Convention; -a Medical Premium Information chart with Hanlon's name and premium cost underlined (for the years 1978- 1985); -an anonymous letter accompanied by Hanlon's Expense Voucher for the 1992 PSATC convention. 14. Yakin based the filing of the complaint against John Hanlon with the State Ethics Commission, on an anonymous letter which she received from "A Wilkins Twp. Employee ". a. Enclosed with the anonymous letter was a copy of John Hanlon's 1992 Convention Expense Report. b. The letter, addressed to Mrs. Yakin, Mr. Marra, and Mr. Suvak, stated the following: "Since you are three concerned citizens of Wilkins, looking out for better management of Twp. expenses...maybe you'll find this information of interest. I understand the four male commissioners in Wilkins Twp. are leaving for a seminar on Sat. /Sun., leaving the lady behind. Maybe Miss Cowell knows something, the tax payers don't know // Is this just an "OUTING" for the boys c. A handwritten note by Yakin at the bottom of the letter indicates that the letter was mailed to her last year, with no signature, and that the township employees told her that Miss Cowell wrote it. 15. Yakin also relied on information she received from a Wilkins Township Commissioner. a. That information alleged that all officers of the State Association have convention expenses paid for by the ' "Association. 16. Yakin did not supply any other information which substantiated her belief that Hanlon's convention expenses were being paid for by both the PSATC and the Wilkins Township. Yaki4, 95-005-C2 Page 7 17. By letter dated February 9, 1994, from the State Ethics Commission, to Mary Yakin, 35 Crestview Drive, East Pittsburgh, PA 15112, receipt of Yakin's complaint was acknowledged. a. It was noted in said letter that the allegations were being reviewed and that she would be notified of subsequent actions. b. The letter further noted that Section 8(k) of the Ethics Act provides that "all Commission proceedings and records relating to an investigation shall be confidential ". c. Additionally, Section 9(e) of Act 9 of 1989, the Ethics Act, was reprinted and enclosed with the letter. d. a . b. Yakin confirmed receipt of the letter (see Finding #20). 18. Yakin attended several resident's meetings held by Wilkins Township Commissioner Cheryl Cowell in 1994. Meetings were held twice a month. Meetings were held by Commissioner Cheryl Cowell, to allow residents to express their concerns and opinions. 19. Yakin announced her intent to file a complaint against John Hanlon, with the Ethics Commission at one of the resident's meetings. a. Yakin subsequently filed a Sworn Complaint against Hanlon. 20. Yakin confirmed that she had filed a complaint against John Hanlon with the State Ethics Commission, and showed those present the Acknowledgment Letter dated February 9, 1994, at the next resident's meeting. a. Yakin believed that Commissioner Cowell, and residents William Suvak and Eugene Marra were at the meeting. 21. Residents who attended the meeting, including Suvak, Marra and Commissioner Cowell, had no recollection of Yakin's disclosure. 22. Yakin ran against John Hanlon for Commissioner in the 1993 Primary Election. a. Yakin defeated Hanlon in the Primary Election, but lost in the General Election. Makin, 95- 005 -C2 Page 8 23. Former Wilkins Township Manager, Gerald Patterson, was aware that the PSATC only paid for past president's convention expenses when they no longer held local office. a. Patterson did not believe that Yakin had asked him if Hanlon's convention expenses were being reimbursed by the State Association. b. He did recall Yakin questioning convention expenses. c. Yakin often reviewed and received copies of records, and minutes at the township building. 24. By way of letter, dated May 2, 1994, John Hanlon was notified by the State Ethics Commission that, after a preliminary investigation, it was determined that there was no basis to commence a full investigation because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause that the State Ethics Law had been violated. a. Hanlon was alleged to have submitted for reimbursement and accepted payment for expenses for attendance at annual conventions which were in excess of actual expenses incurred. b. The file number of Hanlon's case was identified as 94- 011-C2. 25. Hanlon asserts that when he tried to give Mary Yakin a copy of the May 2, 1994, letter, she told him she already had it. 26. John Hanlon asserts that he was contacted by a local newspaper reporter at a township meeting regarding the Ethics Commission investigation. a. The reporter seemed to be aware of the allegations against him. b. The reporter mentioned Mary Yakin's name in a "she said" passing comment. c. The conversation took place before he received the May 2, 1994, letter, from the State Ethics Commission (see Finding #24) . d. The reporter, Publications, and e. No one else was Dudiak. Zandy Dudiak, works for Gateway reports for the Woodland Area Progress. present during his conversation with Makin, 95- 005 -C2 Page 9 f. Hanlon was not aware of the investigation until his conversation with Dudiak. 27. No newspaper article was published as a result of Hanlon's contact with Dudiak. 28. Zandy Dudiak could not recall approaching Hanlon at a township meeting and discussing the State Ethics Commission investigation against him. a. Dudiak could not recall discussing the Hanlon investigation with Mary Yakin. b. Hanlon talked to Dudiak about the investigation and told her about a letter. c. Dudiak believed that the conversation took place a couple days before May 11, 1994. 29. On May 11, 1994, an article appeared in the Woodland Area Progress titled "State Ethics Commission Drops Hanlon Investigation ". a. Dudiak did not write the article. b. Hanlon's comments regarding the investigation were contained in the article as were quotes from the May 2, 1994, letter, from the Commission. 30. Hanlon stated that he was embarrassed that individuals at the P.S.A.T.C. were contacted for information regarding the investigation. a. Hanlon believed that "word was out on the street" about the investigation. b. Hanlon confirmed that no one commented to him about the investigation. 31. Mary Yakin filed an additional sworn complaint with the State Ethics Commission regarding the activities of John Hanlon. a. The complaint was sworn to on March 3, 1995. b. The complaint was received on March 8, 1995. 32. The complaint alleged that John Hanlon did not turn over books and'records to the new Treasurer for 1994. a. The complaint did not specify what position or title was held by Hanlon. Yakin, 95- 005 -C2 Page 10 b. The complaint contained attachments which referred to the Wilkins Township Democratic Club. 33. The complaint was dismissed by the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission on March 8, 1995. a. The State Ethics Commission had no jurisdiction in that matter. B. ORAL ARGUMENT• 34. The parties presented oral argument on December 14, 1995. a. The Investigative Division made the following arguments. (1) Yakin's Complaint against Hanlon is based upon rumor and hearsay. (2) Yakin regularly checked township records but did not check out the facts in this case. (3) There was no basis for a reasonable person to believe such facts existed as to Hanlon. (4) Yakin was made aware of the confidentiality provisions of the Ethics Law. (5) Hanlon, the subject of Yakin's Complaint, was made aware of the investigation by a reporter. (6) Yakin announced at a public township meeting that she would file a complaint against Hanlon and announced at a subsequent public meeting that she had filed a complaint. (a) Yakin showed certain people at the public meeting the letter of the Investigative Division acknowledging the Complaint and advising of the commencement of a preliminary inquiry. (b) Yakin has admitted taking such action. b. Yakin made the following arguments. (1) Yakin objected to Hanlon traveling at taxpayer expense after he lost his bid for election. (2) Yakin states that in the presence of Township Commissioner Rohl and others, she stated that she was going to file a complaint about traveling expenses with this Commission. Yakin, 95-005-C2 Page 11 III. DISCUSSION: (a) At a subsequent meeting Yakin states that she showed the notice of the preliminary inquiry as to Hanlon to Commissioner Cowell and others. (3) Yakin asserts that she did not file anything frivolously. (4) Yakin states that she knew the notice of preliminary inquiry was confidential but believed confidentiality did not apply because the action was taken as a group. (a) Yakin acknowledges that she told the people for whom she was filing the complaint that she had filed. 1. The ten people who knew Yakin filed the complaint were notified by her that a preliminary inquiry was commenced. 2. Yakin states that she did not disclose the preliminary inquiry to anyone other than the people who knew she filed the complaint. Mary Yakin (Yakin) is a resident and citizen of East Bethlehem, Allegheny County, who filed a Complaint with the State Ethics Commission alleging a violation of the Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, by John Hanlon (Hanlon), a former Township Commissioner in Wilkins Township, Allegheny County. The issue before us is whether Yakin violated any of the Wrongful Use of Act provisions or the confidentiality provision of Section 8 of Act 9 of 1989 relative to the said Complaint. Yakin is subject to the confidentiality and wrongful use of act provisions of Act 9 of 1989. Section 8(k) of Act 9 of 1989 provides in part that no person shall disclose or acknowledge any information relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or reconsideration petition which is before the Commission. Section 8(k) further provides for nine exceptions which are not relevant to this case. J Section 10.1 of Act 9 of 1959, the Wrongful Use of Act provision, provides in part that a Wrongful Use of Act occurs: if a complaint was frivolous, that is, filed in a grossly negligent manner without basis in law or fact; if a complaint was filed without probable cause and primarily for a purpose other than YakiA, 95- 005 -C2 Page 12 reporting an Ethics Law violation; or if a person who filed a complaint publicly disclosed or caused to be disclosed that a complaint against another person was filed with the Commission. The record reflects that on February 7, 1994 Yakin filed a sworn Complaint with this Commission alleging that Hanlon violated provisions of Act 9 of 1989. Yakin used the standard State Ethics Commission complaint form which contained instructions and a cautionary note about Section 8(k) as to confidentiality and Section 9 as to the penalties for violating confidentiality. Yakin's Complaint charged that Hanlon violated the Ethics Law when he attended a 1993 Pennsylvania State Association of Township Commissioners (PSATC) Convention at taxpayer's expense on the theory that Hanlon was defeated in the 1993 primary election and was an officer of PSATC which pays the convention expenses of its officers. Yakin, who defeated Hanlon in the primary election, relied upon information from a Wilkins Township Commissioner that officers of PSATC have their convention expenses paid by the State Association. Hanlon was the current Secretary /Treasurer and past president of PSATC. Yakin did not supply any information to substantiate her belief that Hanlon's convention expenses were paid both by PSATC and Wilkins Township. Yakin's Complaint apparently had its genesis in an anonymous letter which she received from a Wilkins Township employee concerning Hanlon and other Township Commissioners who went to the convention at Township expense. Yakin included other information and material in her Complaint. In particular, she noted that Hanlon sought the position of Township Secretary at a salary of $1 per year. Yakin also stated that Hanlon was cited by this Commission for receiving illegal medical benefits for which he lobbied for amnesty. Yakin further included newspaper articles about township commissioners receiving medical benefits at taxpayer expense, Hanlon's appointment as Township Secretary, copies of Hanlon's convention expense voucher, medical premium information as to Hanlon and an anonymous letter about Hanlon's expense voucher for the 1993 PSATC convention. By letter dated February 9, 1994, this Commission acknowledged Yakin's Complaint noting that the allegations were being reviewed and that she would be notified of subsequent actions. The Investigative Division in its letter advised that confidentiality applied as per Section 8(k) of the Ethics Law and enclosed a reprinted copy of Section 9(e) which set forth the penalties for violations of confidentiality. Before filing the Complaint, Yakin attended a meeting of residents held by Commissioner Cowell wherein Yakin announced her Yakin, 95- 005 -C2 Page 13 intention to file a Complaint against Hanlon. After Yakin filed a Complaint against Hanlon, she then confirmed that she had done so at the next residents' meeting attended by Commissioner Cowell and other residents. Yakin, at that time, showed the letter of acknowledgment from the Investigative Division. As to the allegation in the Complaint concerning paid convention expenses, Township Manager Gerald Patterson was aware that PSATC paid for past president's convention expenses when they no longer held office. Patterson did not believe that Yakin had asked him if Hanlon's expenses were being reimbursed by PSATC even though Yakin often reviewed and received copies of Township records and meetings. Hanlon states that he was contacted by a local newspaper reporter at a Township meeting regarding this Commission's "investigation ". The reporter, who seemed to be aware of the allegations, mentioned Mary Yakin's name during their discussion. The conversation took place before Hanlon was notified by letter dated May 2, 1994 from the Investigative Division that, after preliminary investigation, there was no basis to commence a full investigation because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause that the Ethics Law had been violated. Hence, Hanlon was not aware of the investigation until his conversation with the reporter. On May 11, 1994, an article appeared in a local newspaper, the Woodland Area Progress, that the Commission dropped the Hanlon investigation. Hanlon's comments regarding the investigation were contained in the article as were quotes from the May 2, 1994 letter from the Commission advising that the preliminary inquiry had been closed. Hanlon, who was embarrassed that individuals at PSATC were contacted for information regarding the investigation, believed that the "word was out on the street" about the investigation. Yakin subsequently filed another Complaint with the Commission against Hanlon alleging that he did not turn over books and records to the new Treasurer. However, that Complaint was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. In applying the provisions of Act 9 of 1989 to the instant matter, there is clear and convincing proof of violations as to confidentiality under Section 8(k) and Wrongful Use of Act under Section 10.1(a)(2) as to the public disclosure of the Complaint that Yakin filed against Hanlon. Section 8(k) is a broad provision which requires the disclosure of any information relating to a complaint or investigation. As to a breach of confidentiality under Wrongful Use of Act, a violation occurs if a person who filed a complaint Yakin, 95- 005 -C2 Page 14 publicly discloses or causes to be disclosed that a complaint against a person has been filed with this Commission. In this case, Yakin, the Complainant, publicly disclosed that she filed a Complaint against Hanlon. Since such conduct is within the proscription of Section 10.1(a)(2), we find a violation of Wrongful Use of Act as to the public disclosure of the filing of the Complaint. Further, since that public disclosure of the filing of the Complaint encompasses the disclosure of any information relating to a Complaint or investigation, Yakin also violated Section 8(k) of Act 9 of 1989.. Yakin's argument that she did not make any disclosure because her statements were only to the people who knew she filed a Complaint is unavailing. Section 10.1(a)(2) as to confidentiality breach requires the public disclosure by the Complainant that a complaint had been filed against a person. That occurred in this case. Clearly, Yakin, by announcing in the resident's meeting with Commissioner Cowell and these other individuals that she had filed a Complaint, violated Section 8(k) and 10.1(a) (2) of Act 9 of 1989. We now turn to the allegation that Yakin filed a Complaint in a grossly negligent manner without basis in law or fact or without probable cause and primarily for a purpose other than reporting a violation of the Ethics Law. Since this is the first Wrongful Use of Act case which we have been called upon to decide, we believe that it is necessary for us to interpret the General Assembly's intent with regard to Section 10.1(a) (1). The term "frivolous complaint" is defined in the Ethics Law as: " A complaint filed in a grossly negligent manner without basis in law or fact." 65 P.S. §402. The terms which comprise this definition are "legal terms of art" which are not themselves defined. Since this is a matter of first impression, there is no Commission or judicial precedent deciding just what this definition means. The Statutory Construction Act of 1972 does not define any of these terms. In undertaking the important task of • determining the Legislature's intended meaning for this definition, we have considered interpretations of the terms comprising it which have been made in other contexts, in Pennsylvania as well as in other jurisdictions. See, Bloom v. DuBois Regional Medical Ctr., 409 Pa.Super. 83, 597 A.2d 671 (Pa.Super. 1991)(and case cited therein); Woods v. Sheehan, 987 F.2d 1454 (9th Cir. 1993); Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254 (5th Cir. 1993). We determine that the Ethics Law's definition of "frivolous complaint," i.e., "A complaint filed in a grossly negligent manner without basis in law or fact," means a complaint which is filed based upon mere suspicion or speculation and an indisputably meritless legal theory, and which has been filed with substantially Yakin, 95- 005 -C2 Page 15 more than ordinary carelessness, inadvertence, laxity or indifference, and a reckless disregard for the consequences. "Probable cause" is yet another term which is not defined in the Ethics Law. We have found a useful judicial interpretation in the somewhat analogous area of malicious prosecution: In an action for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff has the burden to establish that the defendant initiated the underlying criminal proceeding without probable cause and primarily for a purpose other than to bring an offender to justice; and that the prosecution terminated in his or her favor. Carson v. City of Philadelphia, 133 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 74, 574 A.2d 1184 (1990); See also Restatement (Second) of Torts §653 (1976). Probable cause is a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficient to warrant that an ordinary prudent person in the same situation could believe that the party is guilty of the offense. Miller v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 371 Pa. 308, 89 A.2d 809 (1952). "(P]robable cause is not . . . an actual state of guilt." Neczypor v. Jacobs, 403 Pa. 303, 308, 169 A.2d 528, 530 (1961). LaFrankie v. Miklich, 152 Pa.Commw. 163,-168, 618 A.2d 1145, 1147- 1148 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1992) (and cases cited therein). Within the meaning of the Ethics Law, we find that probable cause is a reasonable ground of suspicion which is supported by circumstances sufficient to warrant an ordinary prudent person in the same situation to believe that the individual against whom the complaint was filed violated the Ethics Law. The standard is stringent. It was meant to be stringent. In drafting this provision, the Legislature was necessarily mindful of the chilling effect which wrongful use of Act cases would bring to the filing of complaints with this Commission. The Legislature clearly intended that findings of wrongful use of -Act be restricted to egregious situations. Based upon our above interpretation as to the requirements for establishing Wrongful Use of Act, both as to the filing of a frivolous complaint or a filing which is made without probable cause and primarily for a purpose other than that of reporting a violation of the Ethics Law, we do not find a violation since Yakin's conduct, in our view, did not rise to the above level under the facts. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 10.1(c), we shall notify Hanlon of the name and address of Yakin and of our determination that Yakin violated the Wrongful Use of Act provision of the Ethics Yakin, 95- 005 -C2 Page 16 Law as to the public disclosure of the Complaint which she filed against him. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Mary Yakin is subject to the confidentiality and Wrongful Use of Act provisions of Act 9 of 1989. 2. Yakin violated Section 8(k) of Act 9 of 1989 when she publicly disclosed information relating to a Complaint /investigation against John Hanlon. 3. Yakin violated Section 10.1(a)(2) of Act 9 of 1989 when she, as the Complainant, publicly disclosed that she filed a Complaint against Hanlon with the State Ethics Commission. 4. Yakin did not violate Section 10.1(a)(1) of Act 9 of 1989 as to the filing of a frivolous Complaint in that such Complaint was not filed in a grossly negligent manner without basis in law or fact. 5. Yakin did not violate Section 10.1(a)(1) of Act 9 of 1989 in that the filing of the Complaint was not without probable cause and primarily for a purpose other than that of reporting a violation of the Ethics Law. In Re: Mary Yakin ORDER 999 File Docket: 95- 005 -C2 Date Decided: 2/15/96 Date Mailed: 3/1/96 1. Mary Yakin violated Section 8(k) of Act 9 of 1989 when she publicly disclosed information relating to a Complaint/ investigation against John Hanlon. 2. Yakin violated Section 10.1(a)(2) of Act 9 of 1989 when she, as the Complainant, publicly disclosed that she filed a Complaint against Hanlon with the State Ethics Commission. 3. Yakin did not violate Section 10.1(a)(1) of Act 9 of 1989 as to the filing of a frivolous Complaint in that such Complaint was not filed in a grossly negligent manner without basis in law or fact. 4. Yakin did not violate Section 10.1(a)(1) of Act 9 of 1989 in that the filing of the Complaint was not without probable cause and primarily for a purpose other than that of reporting a violation of the Ethics Law. 5. The name and address of Mary Yakin, 35 Crestview Drive, East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15112, who violated a Wrongful Use of Act provision of Act 9 of 1989, and a copy of this determination will be provided to Hanlon. BY THE COMMISSION, cO &A4J DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR