PHONE: 717-783-1610 STATE ETHICS COMMISSION FACSIMILE: 717?787-0806
TOLL FREE: 1-800-932-0936 FINANCE BUILDING WEBSITE: 
613 NORTH STREET, ROOM 309
HARRISBURG, PA 17120-0400

 

April 19,2019

Yesenia Bane 
c/o Matthew H. Haverstick, Esq
Kleinbard LLC

1717 Arch Street, 5th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 1 9103

Re: Bane, 18?014

 

Dear Ms. Bane,

The State Ethics Commission has reviewed allegations following the receipt of a signed

sworn complaint that alleged you violated provisions of the Public Of?cial and Public Employee
Ethics Act, 65 ?1 103(21):

When, in your public position as Deputy Chief of Staff to Governor
Tom Wolf, you used the authority of your public position and/or con?dential
information received through your position for the bene?t of yourself, a member
of your immediate family, and/ or a business with which you and/or a member of
your immediate family are associated when you participated in meetings,
discussions, and decision making events concerning pending/ ongoing natural
gas/pipeline projects pending before the Department of
Environmental Protection, including but not limited to the Mariner l] Pipeline
Infrastructure Project, at a time when your husband, John Bane, served as a

lobbyist to principals with direct interest in the pending/ ongoing natural
gas/pipeline projects.

Following a full and extensive investigation into the above allegations and a thorough
evaluation of all information and documentation obtained in this matter, the Commission has
determined that there is a lack of suf?cient evidence to establish two of the required elements of
a violation of Section (1) a use of the authority of your public position to
bene?t your husband and/ or a business with which he is associated with; or (2) a private
pecuniary bene?t to your husband and/ or a business with which he is associated. As such, the
Commission has terminated its investigation into this matter. However, your position, coupled
with the employment of your husband as an industry lobbyist, created a perception that your
actions in ful?lling the Governor?s policy agenda was a way for you to ?nancially bene?t your

husband and/ or his employers.

Under law, the Commission bears the burden of proving an Ethics Act
violation. That burden is ?clear and convincing proof.? Clear and convincing proof is evidence so
clear, direct, weighty, and convincing that it enables the trier of fact to come to a clear

conviction, Without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts at issue. See G.L. v. State Ethics
Comm?n, l7 A.3d 445, 453 (Pa. melth. 2011).

The evidence produced during the investigation did not meet the requisite burden of
proof. There is insuf?cient evidence of motivated, directed action on your part to obtain a private
pecuniary bene?t for your husband and/ or his employers. Instead, the evidence gathered points to
you acting as a liaison and ful?lling the Governor?s policy agenda. The evidence gathered
included memos dated September 13, 2016 and December 30, 2016, acknowledging that your
husband was a lobbyist and you were not to be involved with any matters involving his
employers. These memos were submitted to then current Chief of Staff Mary Isenhour and
General Counsel Denise Smyler. The investigation did not produce suf?cient evidence, in
contradiction to the memos, that you took any of?cial action and/ or used con?dential
information that ?nancially bene?tted your husband and/ or his employers.

Based solely upon the documentation made available and the numerous witness
interviews conducted by SEC investigators, the Investigative Division has concluded that it
would not be able to meet its burden that a violation of the Ethics Act occurred.

The Investigative Division?s termination of the investigation, as outlined above,
concludes this matter.

Very tr/uly yours,

8/

Jeffery S. Fr/ ankenburger
Assistant Counsel

SF/hm