COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY UPHOLDS COMPLAINTS AGAINST COLASANTE IN ETHICS PROBE
By Cynthia Drummond for BRVCA
June 4th 2024
PROVIDENCE – The Rhode Island Ethics Commission has found that there is probable cause to uphold several complaints against Town Council member Michael Colasante.
Following a hearing in executive session on Tuesday, Commission Chairperson Marisa Quinn announced that there was probable cause to uphold three complaints filed in Sept. 2023 by council President Mark Trimmer that Colasante committed ethics violations in his business relationship with former Electrical Inspector, Jeffrey Vaillancourt.
Commission Opinion One:
The Commission voted 7-0 that there is probable cause to believe that Colasante violated an Ethics Commission regulation “by receiving the assistance and/or services of Jeffrey Vaillancourt, a licensed electrician serving as the Town of Richmond’s Electrical Inspector relative to the performance of an underground electrical installation and related excavation at the respondent’s property at 71 Buttonwoods Road in Richmond in August, 2023,” Quinn stated.
Commission Opinion Two:
In a second unanimous vote, the Commission found that probable cause exists that Colasante violated a second regulation “by receiving the assistance and/or services of Jeffrey Vaillancourt, a licensed electrician serving as the Town of Richmond Electrical Inspector relative to a 2023 request to Rhode Island Energy to provide electrical service at the respondent’s property at 71 Buttonwoods Road in Richmond,” Quinn stated.
Commission Opinion Three:
In another unanimous vote, the Commission found that there is probable cause to believe that Colasante violated a commission regulation “by receiving a gift in the form of a Town of Richmond Electrical Inspector Jeffrey Vaillancourt’s payment to [electrical contractor] Angelo Palazzo, for the cost of electrical permit #5414 for the respondent’s property at Buttonwoods Road in Richmond.”
The Investigative Report
The Commission’s 38-page Investigative Report, a public document, contains an enlightening account of Colasante’s responses to the investigator.
Page 20 of the report describes Colasante as denying that Vaillancourt had performed electrical work at his Buttonwoods property.
“Colasante denied that Vaillancourt ever performed electrical work for him but explained that there was an instance in which Vaillancourt assisted him with excavation on
his property when he encountered difficulty removing boulders with his own small backhoe,” the report states.
However, on the next page of the report, Colasante
“admitted that electrical work was performed at his sawmill property in 2023, specifically the installation of an electrical panel. In response to being asked who had performed that work, Colasante’s demeanor changed, and he replied, ‘I don’t think it’s pertinent.’ Colasante expressed that workers already do not want to work with him due to the amount of scrutiny he faces. After being advised that providing information about who
performed the electrical work, and any related payment documentation, would assist him in establishing that he and Vaillancourt were not business associates, Colasante claimed
that he could not recall the identity of the electrician and that he would have to check to see if he had any records.”
No Violation of State Law
The Commission did not find that Colasante had violated state law in failing to recuse himself from Town Council decisions regarding Vaillancourt’s hiring and job performance.
Quinn read the opinion:
“… on a motion to find that probable cause exists to find the respondent violated Rhode Island General Laws § 36-14-5(a) and 7 (a) by participating in the Town Council’s decision - making relative to the hiring and discipline of Jeffrey Vaillancourt, the motion failed.”
The investigative report provides some insight into the defeat of the motion.
The report states:
“Not only did Colasante participate in Town Council discussions and votes regarding Vaillancourt, a review of his comments and motions indicates that Colasante at times engaged as an advocate for Vaillancourt. Yet, the investigation yielded no evidence that Vaillancourt was compensated for his performance of work at Colasante’s property, and both parties deny that any payment was asked for or received. Similarly, there was no evidence garnered that Colasante paid Vaillancourt for the services he performed on his behalf with RI Energy, and both parties assert that Vaillancourt provided such services as a favor.”
Next Steps
The next step in the process is an adjudicative hearing.
“The Commission will schedule an adjudicative hearing as to those counts for which probable cause was found,” Quinn said.
The adjudicative hearing will be conducted in much the same manner as a court procedure.
The Ethics Commission describes the hearing as follows:
“This is an adversarial hearing. The prosecutor and the respondent may present evidence and examine witnesses. Additionally, Commissioners may question witnesses. Rules of evidence are followed, regulations provide for discovery, and principles of due process govern all procedures. A stenographic record is kept and the hearing is conducted in an open and public session.”
The Timeline
Ethics Commission Executive Director Jason Grammit explained what would happen after the adjudicative hearing.
“The adjudication is open to the public, it’s a public hearing, and at the conclusion, the commission will vote as to whether or not those violations occurred, those three violations,” he said. “If any of those violations, if they find there was not sufficient evidence to support the violation, it will be dismissed. If they find on one or more of them that there is a violation of the Code of Ethics, they will then impose a penalty and they’ll vote on the penalty, and the penalties, generally they involve a civil penalty, a monetary penalty of up to $25,000 per violation.”
Respondents who are not satisfied with the commission’s decisions can appeal to Rhode Island Superior Court.
Grammit noted that with summer coming, he did not expect the adjudicative hearing to take place until the fall.
Mark Trimmer, who filed the complaints against Colasante, said,
“I warned him three times. I would not have filed it if he had just backed off and did the right thing,” he said. “But he had to double down to prove me wrong and in doing so, violated ethics.”
Link to the Report
Link to the Order