Nassaney Ethics Complaint Tossed, Colasante Probe Extended

By Cynthia Drummond for BRVCA
February 27th 2024

PROVIDENCE – Members of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission voted during the executive session of their Feb. 27 meeting to dismiss a complaint against Town Council Vice President Richard Nassaney. They also voted to extend the investigation period for a complaint against council member Michael Colasante, in order to investigate in greater depth the allegations against him.

The Nassaney Complaint

The commission’s Feb. 8, 2024 Investigative Report, summarizes the complaint by Nell Carpenter in Sept. 2023.

Carpenter alleged that Nassaney had violated the Rhode Island Code of Ethics when he participated in council discussions regarding a complaint to the town by Pasquale Farms Garden Center against the electrical inspector at the time, Jeffrey Vaillancourt.

The violation involved Nassaney’s bottled sauces, and his sale, in Oct. 2022, of two cases of the sauce to Pasquale Farms to sell at the garden center.

The Vaillancourt Connection

Pasquale Farms’ owner, Lauren Pasquale, and her husband Frank, first encountered Vaillancourt when they decided to expand their operation and required an electrical inspection in order to obtain a license from the town to hold music and food truck events.

Frank Pasquale complained to the town that Vaillancourt had used vulgar language and made inappropriate comments when he went to the garden center to discuss the upgrades. Pasquale asked the town to assign another inspector, and the town sent Michael Rosso, who issued the permit for the required minor electrical upgrades.

(It should be noted that following additional complaints about his comportment, Vaillancourt was dismissed at the Jan. 30, 2024 council meeting. Rosso is now the town’s Electrical Inspector.)

The Town Council discussed Pasquale Farms matter, as well as a second complaint about Vaillancourt from another local business, during the executive session of the June 6, 2023 council meeting. When the council returned to open session, councilor Samantha Wilcox made a motion, which Nassaney seconded, to terminate Vaillancourt. But after further discussion, Nassaney seconded another motion, made by Michael Colasante, to extend Vaillancourt’s probation rather than dismiss him.

The Ethics Commission’s investigation concluded that the case did not meet the criteria to establish a violation of the Code of Ethics because:

• Nassaney would have to have an established business relationship with Pasquale Farms during the period in which Vaillancourt’s behavior was called into question and he did not.

• He would have had to have taken what the commission calls “official action” that would have financially benefitted Pasquale Farms, which he did not take.

• There was no contract between Nassaney and Pasquale Farms.

The Commission issued the following conclusion, stating that,

 “… no conflict of interest exists when a prior business relationship between a public official and a private party has ended, and there is no ongoing or specific business relationship between the parties. In determining whether a relationship between two parties constitutes an ongoing business association, the Commission examines the nature of the association, the scope of the business dealings between the parties, and whether the parties are conducting ongoing business transactions, have outstanding accounts, or there exists an anticipated future relationship.”

There was no ongoing business relationship between Nassaney and Pasquale Farms on June 6, 2023, when Nassaney participated in a council discussion about Vaillancourt’s conduct at Pasquale Farms.

The Decision

Commission Chair, Marisa Quinn, read the decision when the commission returned to open session.

“The commission voted 6-0 to find that there does not exist probable cause to believe that the respondent, Richard Nassaney, a member of the Richmond Town Council, violated Rhode Island General Laws § 36-14-5(a), 5(d), or Commission regulation 1.2.1(A)(2) by participating in voting in a disciplinary hearing on June 6, 2023 regarding the town’s electrical inspector,” she stated. “The complaint is dismissed, with prejudice.”

(“With prejudice” means that the decision is final and the plaintiff, in this case, Nell Carpenter, cannot file the same complaint again.)

Nassaney said after the hearing that he was relieved to hear the decision.

“Going, in, you’re always concerned, because you never know what the commission is going to say or do,” he said. “But in my heart, I knew I was going to be exonerated.”

Nassaney noted that this was the ninth ethics complaint Carpenter has filed against him, and all of them have been dismissed.

The Colasante Complaint Warrants Further Investigation

The Ethics Commission has 180 days to complete investigations of ethics complaints, but members can approve extensions, if there is “good cause.” In the case of councilor Michael Colasante, the commission has decided that there is good cause, and has chosen to further investigate two complaints, one filed by council President Mark Trimmer and the second by council Vice President Richard Nassaney.

Trimmer’s Complaint Against Colasante

Trimmer’s complaint, filed in Sept. 2023, alleges that former electrical inspector Jeffrey Vaillancourt had an “ongoing business relationship” with Colasante and was doing electrical work at Colasante’s Buttonwoods Road sawmill. Colasante argued that that no money had changed hands, however, the business relationship continued during the period when the council held two disciplinary hearings on Vaillancourt’s behavior, hearings from which Colasante refused to recuse himself, and actively participated and voted.

Nassaney’s Complaint Against Colasante

Filed in Nov. 2023, Nassaney’s complaint states that Colasante had a business relationship with D’Ambra Construction in Aug. 2023, when he voted to award a contract for the paving of North Road to D’Ambra. Not long after the vote, during the first week of September, a truck from Richmond Sand and Stone, a company owned by D’Ambra, delivered material for a retaining wall to Colasante’s property on Buttonwoods Road.

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 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.”

Commission Chair Marisa Quinn read the decision to extend the investigation beyond 180 days.

“The commission voted 6-0 to find that the record was established that good cause exists and to grant the prosecution’s motion to enlarge time for investigation, first extension of 60 days to May 11, 2024 to conclude the investigation, conduct a probable cause hearing and issue related findings,” she said.