Ethics Commission Extends Colasante Investigations

By Cynthia Drummond for BRVCA
April 9th 2024

PROVIDENCE – The Rhode Island Ethics Commission voted at its Tuesday meeting to extend, for a second time, its investigations into two ethics complaints against Town Council member Michael Colasante.

Trimmer’s Complaint

One complaint, filed in Sept. 23 2023 by council President Mark Trimmer, focuses on the business relationship between Colasante and former Electrical Inspector, Jeffrey Vaillancourt. The complaint states that while Vaillancourt was doing electrical work at Colasante’s sawmill on Buttonwoods Road, Colasante declined to recuse himself from two disciplinary hearings on Vaillancourt’s behavior and that Colasante participated in the hearings and also voted.

Nassaney’s Complaint

In November, 2023, Town Council Vice President Richard Nassaney filed a complaint stating that Colasante had a business relationship with D’Ambra Construction when he voted in favor of awarding a paving contract for North Road to D’Ambra.

Not long after the contract was awarded to D’Ambra, a truck from Richmond Sand and Stone, a company owned by D’Ambra, delivered material for a retaining wall to Colasante’s property.

D’Ambra trucks were observed on the Colasante property on Oct. 13, and at the Oct. 17 Town Council meeting, Colasante voted to award another paving contract, this time for Tug Hollow Road, to D’Ambra. On Oct. 18, the day after the second paving contract was awarded to D’Ambra, Nassaney’s complaint states the company was observed at Colasante’s Buttonwoods property “installing the retaining wall material and grading his property for a future driveway.”

The Decisions 

Tuesday’s decisions to grant extensions to the commission’s investigations into the two complaints follow a Feb. 2024 decision to grant the first extensions.

Commission Chair Marisa Quin read the decisions, which were the results of votes that had taken place in Executive Session.

Regarding complaint by Trimmer,

“The commission voted 7 to 0 to find the record had established that good cause exists and to grant the prosecution’s motion to enlarge time for investigation, second extension, 60 days, to July 10, 2024.”

On the second complaint, Quinn stated,

“The commission voted by 7 to 0 to find that the record has established that good cause exists and to grant the prosecution’s motion to enlarge time for investigation.”

That extension is to July 12, 2024.

Contacted after the meeting, Executive Director Jason Gramitt explained that it is not uncommon for the commission to grant two extensions on an investigation, but that it does not allow more than two.

“It’s not unusual at all,” he said. “It’s a very common thing in cases before the Ethics Commission. Two extensions are the limit.”

Trimmer and Nassaney React

Trimmer said he was disappointed that a decision on his complaint had been delayed again.

“I’m disappointed because the elections are just around the corner, and people should know and who they’re not voting for and why,” he said.

Nassaney said he hoped the extension signaled a deeper investigation.

“The fact that they’ve asked for a second extension tells me they’re finding the rabbit hole goes even further,” he said. “They’re very thorough, so if they’re not satisfied, they’re going to keep digging.”