Good evening, good evening everyone.

Uh thank you um for being here and welcome to commiting an ordinance.

Today is May thirteenth and the time at 545.

541.

I'm Chairman uh Councilman Pedro Espinal, along with my colleagues, uh Councilman Royas, Councilwoman Harris, Council Warman Peterson, and Councilman Bargas, we welcome you all.

Uh Madam Clerk, please call the role.

Chairman Espinal.

Present.

Vice Chairwoman Peterson?

President.

Councilwoman Harris.

Present.

Councilman Bargas?

Present.

Council Arroyas?

Present.

Five present.

No, I said you have a quorum.

Thank you.

Uh could you please read the uh first item on the agenda, please?

Item one.

An ordinance amending chapter 18 and a half, please.

Section two Providence External Review Authority para of the Providing Code of Ordinances.

Thank you.

And I'll entertain a motion to enter into the record substitute A.

Made by Councilwoman Peterson, second by Councilman Vargas.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Yeah, I just have it.

Okay.

So we'll go straight in to the public comment and to present on this substitute and this ordinance, we have uh policy director, Aaron Easter Gardner, uh, who will present to us about the changes that we uh trying to enact.

Uh no.

Thank you.

Uh Chairman, uh, members of the committee.

Um I'm just gonna take a brief moment to um go over, you know, the changes as you see um in this ordinance.

Um so just to stop start from the top here, um we can and you could follow along if you have the ordinance in front of you.

Um in as this has been discussed for you know a decent amount of time and there will be a lot of public comment.

I'm gonna mainly, you know, go over the uh the major changes.

Um clearly when you read the ordinance, there are certain like you know, clarifying pieces that are very much um self-explanatory.

Um so just to start from the beginning when we look at subsection A, which is called established, um simply you will see language there that would add con continuity to the term of the executive director, um if not continued or if not there is not action by the council.

Um similar to a lot of different boards and commissions here in the city um for the you know importance of the position, just in case there is any you know, slow down and you know, operations that that body can still continue.

Um so that's what that changes there for in subsection A.

And then, you know, moving along to subsection B, which speaks to the scope of authority.

Um I'll go over number two.

And simply that language expands um periscope of review to include all trainings conducted on behalf of PPD, including you know, some police academies.

Um the language was very narrow and it could be construed to just speak of specific officers training um officers or other individuals of the department.

So four, additionally, this clarifies PERRA's authority to conduct regular reviews of police conduct in practice.

Five establishes an early warning system, which is independent of you know the systems that are maintained by the police department.

And in this is to you know be able to flag you know certain officers for for you know training and whatnot.

But what's clear with this language is that it is something that would be you know shared, you know, with the police department and it wouldn't be just contained within PERA.

Um so let's see, so six, we have you know establishes periodic reviews of you know OPR, which is the Office of You know, professional responsibility investigations, you know, including the authority to make rec recommendations to reopen investigations or to amend findings um of OPR.

And that you know, goes over the changes in scope of authority, um then subsection C, which is composition, and again, this is um for clarity and continuity.

Um again, just like the executive director um for a board with you know this important function, um, continuity for the board members as well, if there is counsel in action in the future.

Um also clarity in terms of what is required to you know apply to the board.

Um, we want to make it clear that you know a resume is to be submitted to the appointing authority, which could be the mayor or could be the council.

And then additionally, um, which is very similar to again a lot of other boards and commissions, there's clear language that would bar um current elected officials from serving or um individuals that are board members to actually run for elected office, whether it be local, state, or federal.

All right, moving along to subsection H, which covers the executive director, I will start with one.

Um it grants para investigative staff along with the executive director the authority to monitor internal OPR investigations.

Moving on to two, um, it grants investigative staff that same authority regardless of external agency involvement.

Five um clarifies that um again when we're speaking about the continuity of an important board, um it speaks to investigative staff taking the helm as executive director in case of absence of the executive director for numerous reasons that are outlined in the ordinance.

Umsection K, also very you know straightforward, um, and it connects to language that was added in the earlier section, but just further clarifying language that the that the authority has the authority to review police academy um policies.

And moving on to subsection Q, in terms of in vet which is called investigation, and it's very you know simple.

Um while there is an OPR investigation ongoing, um PERA will not investigate, they would not investigate until the conclusion of an internal investigation by the department.

So um subsection T, which is somewhat um related, um let's see, cooperation is the title of the section, and this would grant full user um access of the records management software of the police department to the executive director and para-staff, but again, clarifying that this is authority that's given to city staff and not necessarily um board members.

And then the last um change that I'll highlight would be subsection U, and it speaks to findings of fact and determination, and quite simply it just requires a timely response to um recommendations from PERA to um the police department.

Um just in past practice, um, when recommendations have been shared um with the department, there's been an open timeline and you know, not knowing when an answer you know would be you know given publicly um so that this adds that timeline so it's in statute.

Um overall, those are the major changes, and outside of those, um the others that you'll see are just very simple and straightforward clarifying items.

So those are the major changes there.

Thank you, Aaron.

Uh any question from our colleagues for Aaron.

Counselor Peterson.

Thank you.

Oh, there it is.

Thank you, Policy Director Aaron, for explaining all of this for us.

And I'm sure we'll have additional testimony coming in, but there is one thing in particular here that I wanted to make sure that I highlighted.

And this is just something that I think personally I believe that we should be doing for all of our boards.

And I think I believe very, very strongly in creating an opportunity for new people to come on after a certain after uh uh term has expired or a set number of term um consecutive terms have have gone through.

So I'd like to see if there's any possibility of creating um and if this um if this committee is okay with it, um creating an opportunity where we create um a consecutive term limit um addition as an amendment to board members.

Um again I think it's ext it only makes what we try to do stronger and how we support the community stronger.

Um and I'd love to be able to see something like that.

And I don't know if it if I should have explained this now, um, but it is something that was just um in the moment, so I just wanted to make sure that I address that.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

My quicker response would be that yeah, you are correct that there's nothing in this ordinance that speaks specifically to you know term limits, but if you know um you know the committee would want to move to add this, like there's certainly a proper section, um a proper area under subsection C composition, or that could potentially you know be added.

Um it would just be a matter of determining, you know, um for how many consecutive terms you want to limit board members to but yeah that is possible.

Um just I to make it similar to what we do with other um with other term limit consistencies of um with council and things I I would assume that a term limit of um and I don't know how long these go.

Do these go for three years?

Or these go for four years?

Okay.

I think so they go for three years, and then you know I think that if you wanted to, for instance line it up very similar to you know the terms of the council, I think that would be four consecutive terms and that would be potentially twelve years for them.

But yes, that would be the the proper area to put it in in subsection C.

I would say that that's more than fair.

Um and as long as my the committee is okay with making that amendment, um I would request that we do that.

Okay.

Indeed, indeed.

Thank you, Councillor Peterson.

Anybody else?

Uh Council Warman Harris, please.

Thank you.

And I want to thank Councilwoman Peterson for um recommending that addition.

Um we see that in the first section of establishment established uh upon expiration of the initial two-year term, the executive director shall continue to serve in authority unless a new executive director is appointed.

Uh given what councilwoman Peterson, we know that the executive director do have two-year term.

And just to piggyback off what Councilwoman Peterson said about really identifying the term, uh that would guarantee that the city council would have some kind of a lamb or whatever that that person's term is up, that person's not respon is not don't have a responsibility to let the council know that their term is up.

But uh usually I think this is done by the executive director who says that person's term is up in order to avoid the error.

I think it would be good to have that term limit so we are no in advance.

Well the council itself would know in advance um to be ready for any nominations.

I think we do a lot of that uh marketing around we need people to serve on the board.

Absolutely.

Thank you, Councilman Peterson, for that recommendation.

Thank you, Councilwoman Harris.

Anybody else?

Okay.

Well, thank you so much, Aaron.

Appreciate your input.

Uh City Sargent, can you please bring me the list of those members of the public that have signed up to speak on this item?

Before we call the rest of the members, we have Major Remolina from Providence Police Department who is here to speak on this.

Good evening, sir.

Good evening, Chairman, members of the committee, members of the department.

My name is Major Henry Romlina, and I serve as the commanding officer of the Office of Professional Responsibility for the Providence Police Department.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening regarding the proposed amendments for the Providence External Review Authority ordinance.

At the outset, I want to acknowledge the ongoing collaboration between the administration, city solicitor's office, and the council staff on this ordinance.

We recognize and appreciate that several changes are made in response to concerns previously raised by the department.

As you know, we believe that PERRA plays an important role in our department and our community.

We support meaningful civilian oversight and understand the important role of accountability and transparency plays in maintaining public trust.

OPR exists for that exact reason to ensure allegations of misconduct are investigated thoroughly, professionally, and fairly.

Still, with the revisions, the department continues to have serious operational, legal, public safety concerns with portions of the ordinance currently drafted, particularly Sections T and U.

As commanding officer of OPR, my primary concern is preserving the integrity of investigations.

Involving officers' misconduct, especially investigations that may involve potential criminal conduct.

The language contained in Section T would grant PERRA full user access to police record systems, internal investigative files, and body worn camera systems.

These systems contain highly sensitive material, including criminal investigation investigative information, protective personal records, victim and witness statements, confidential evidence and information subject to both state and federal confidentiality protections.

Importantly, the proposed access exceeds what many members of the department and law department are permitted to access, absent specific operational needs.

Even internal investigators and legal personnel access materials based upon investigative necessity, chain of command, and legal authority.

From an investigative standpoint, unrestricted and inadequately limited access creates a very potential for parallel investigations to occur outside established department procedures without proper conditional coordination with OPR.

That presents significant risk to our city, our department, and community trust.

Parallel investigations have the potential to compromise inquiries that may ultimately lead to criminal charges involving officer misconduct.

If PERRA initiates investigation into matters involving potential criminal conduct, it could interfere with or impede the investigation, the police department is legally obligated to conduct.

OPR investigators are trained professionals who utilize established investigative techniques and nationally recognized best practice.

A premature or overlapping civilian investigation could unintentionally undermine the integrity of the investigative process, compromise evidentiary procedures, and jeopardize the department's ability to reach legal sound conclusion.

Most importantly, the community should not be placed in a position where an officer who may otherwise have been removed from duty remains on the street because an investigation was compromised or improperly handled.

Internal investigations involve potential criminal conduct should be first conducted by trained law enforcement investigators with the appropriate experience, legal authority, and investigative resources necessary to protect the accountability and due process.

That does not mean transparency should be denied.

Once an internal investigation is completed, the Providence Police Department is fully prepared to cooperate with PERRA by providing reports, evidence, and additional information necessary to ensure accountability, transparency while still protecting the integrity of the investigative process.

We also remain concerned with Section U, which currently states the chief shall impose discipline based upon peral recommendations.

Under Rhode Island law, collective bargaining agreements, and law enforcement officers' bill of rights, disciplinary authority, and procedural procedures involve specific legal obligations and due process protections.

Peral recommendations should absolutely be considered seriously and thoughtfully.

However, the ordinance should preserve the chief discretion to accept, reject, or modify disciplinary recommendations based on totality of facts, applicable law, departmental policies, and procedural requirements.

Ultimately, the department remains committed to continue collaboration with the council and all stakeholders to develop an ordinance that strengthens public confidence while also protecting investigative integrity, officers due process rights, sensitive information, and compliance with state law.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you so much.

Any questions from committee members?

Would you mind staying for a couple of questions if the committee members have?

Councilman Royer, do you have a councilwoman Harris?

Thank you.

What in the report do PARA?

You said that doing the investigation.

Well, there's certain information that you feel that the department feels like PARA is not privileged to, such as the internal uh information that you have that you do your own investigation.

When you do your investigation, what kind of information once you do your investigation and find your finding, what type of report do you turn over to PARA?

Do you do you show evidence of stuff that's on camera, stuff that's been caught on camera, or how detailed do you get in the report that you submit to PARA that this case, the findings that you have?

Great question, and thank you for that.

Uh I can tell you we share uh the reports, we share the statements from the officers, we share the statements, the complaint, we share the body on camera video, we share our entire investigative findings, which is the actual report that is uh wraps up the investigation.

Uh we've shared what they've asked uh once our investigation is complete.

Uh does PERA have the ability to ask for more if the missing some information?

Yes, and that and that does happen.

As you can understand, investigations are complex.

Communication is uh between uh and anyone is sometimes you you have you need clarifications, but yes, that is it is not out of the realm where we submit uh information and they come back and ask for more, and it will be provided.

And it has been provided.

Okay, and this is final, this is a different question.

How often have there been a parallel investigation between the police department and para?

Has that happened and does it happen often?

Uh no, it has not happened because of our coordination uh with one another, but that's the real threat.

Uh that happening could have some uh dire consequences.

I'm just trying to understand um the T and the U that is being questioned by the police department because obviously that's information that PERO would need to be able to conduct a real investigation is the information that whether there, you know, if PERRA gets the case first and they send you information that they have the case and the person does not go and file the case before you, right?

Um then PERRA have full investigation of that case, right?

Or do the police investigate anyways?

We have not had that happen.

Uh what has occurred it gets referred to us or the individuals.

They'll file a complaint with us and then they'll also file a uh complaint with para.

And if that happens, how do you determine where they go?

Do you leave it up to the person to say, look, file a complaint either there or file a complaint here?

But you don't won't do a process.

Once we receive a complaint, we're obligated by the consent degree to investigate.

And we do investigate it fully, and what we do is once we've concluded our investigation and it's run its course uh through to the colonel, uh, we I then notify perhaps and we have uh no uh regularly scheduled meetings.

I work with inspector uh investigator Ivant uh and we provide them what they with our investigation and if they need additional information, we make that available as well.

I guess what I'm trying to understand if I decide I want to file a complaint in both places, how would you know that I filed it at Paro?

Do the pre people tell you that they filed it at both places, or do you send uh some kind of a notice to Para saying I receive this complaint from John Doe?

And if Perra has the same complaint, Perel may say to you, Oh, I have the same complaint.

I guess I'm trying to figure out if that ever happened, how do you solve that?

The what occurs is Perra would usually uh will notify me and say we receive the complaint from John Doe.

I'll take a look.

I said, yes, we have that complaint, they filed with us, we're investigating it.

Vice versa, do the police department share that same information?

Do we share with per all of our complaints?

No, no, no, no, no.

That you have received the complaint, a new newly complaint, just in case it's already there at Parel.

Uh no, because obviously we receive a lot more complaints than Perra does.

So uh the way we found it works out best, uh, is they notify us, John Doe, Jane Doe filed the complaint.

Have they filed one with you?

Uh yes, they have.

Thank you.

I was just trying to figure out exactly the parallel complaint process and how would it even happen?

Uh especially if you guys are taking proactive measures to communicate uh when a complaint is filed.

I can't understand.

I mean, it is it's useless to have two complaints uh parallel complaints, simply it costs the city money, you know, it's very expensive.

And it's if that is the case, there should be a better mechanism in place where you are not doing that, or there is no chance but to happen.

But to be able to ask for our information, I I don't think that would cause a parallel investigation.

In my mind, I might be wrong.

I don't do your work, so you know, I don't know.

But you know, it just don't seem I mean it doesn't seem right.

But that's just in my mind as I'm thinking through it.

Thank you for your answers.

Thank you, Councillor Harris.

Councilman Royus, please.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh I just uh to continue um the conversation around parallel investigations.

Could you just clarify?

Maybe I'm not understanding, because the on section Q of the ornaments, it quite explicitly states, unless I'm confused, um, it quite explicitly states that per will not conduct parallel investigations with the Office of Professional Responsibility, uh parentheses OPR, it will hold such investigations until OPR has concluded their internal investigation.

So to me, it sounds like they're gonna have OPR conclude their investigation and then to which pair will begin theirs.

So that doesn't sound like a parallel investigation, or is there am I you know uh I'll stop there just uh in my not sort of uh interpreting that in a way that from your perspective or or from the colonel's perspective?

That's what we have in place to avoid parallel investigations.

The concern is that with the expanded and the reform, it's gonna uh create the opportunity for parallel investigations to be had.

That's sort of like uh how I'm interpreting from maybe the the uh the colonel's perspective is that there are investigations happening at the same time and it's gonna muddy the waters, but how could that be if pair is gonna per would involve themselves after OPR concludes their investigation?

I guess I'm struggling with that.

Like once you've done your investigation, how would that muddy the waters for lack of better words?

Uh so yes, that would not.

The issue is if the with the expansion, if PERRA conducts its own investigation without our knowledge, it and it becomes a criminal investigation, that would be a uh or we may be conducting the same investigation.

If we if it's not coordinated with the the with OPR.

Uh Councilman Vargas.

Thank you very much.

Um the question here, like and let it you is if per is doing investigation and op OPR is doing the investigation at the same time, it's look like a conflict of interest.

Because Perra is trying to investigate you and OPR is trying to investigate whatever's going on inside the department.

The way I understand correctly if I am wrong, is will be two investigations.

Yeah, it you so your question, I I'm sorry, I I missed the question.

The question is if they do is going parallel with your OPR at the same time, is a conflict of interest.

Because one is investigating the department, and the department is investigating whatever what happens inside the department.

My understanding is this no, per would be investigating an incident against an officer and a civilian.

If they're investigating that incident and we are also investigating that incident, that'll be uh parallel.

I think what you're describing is if uh perhap is auditing, reviewing our investigation, that's different.

That is not a parallel.

Let me just add, perhaps as a point of clarification, uh when you look at Q uh that there will be no parallel investigation, but that's something that we all came into agreement on that there will not be any parallel investigation.

This is why it's highlighted on here.

Um I don't think that that is the case today.

I mean, this this has not been enacted, this has not become the law.

But if I'm gonna refer to the letter from the chief, the concern is probably T that while the police is conducting an investigation, all of the records will be released to PERA.

Although PERRA will not be conducted an investigation, that will be available.

Correct.

So just to clarify so my colleagues can uh direct the questions and concern.

Counselor Peterson.

Thank you.

Uh Major, um thank you for being here.

Um has the situation that you're presenting happened at all ever?

The situation that you're the concern that you have as uh as the public safety or as the police department.

The concern over parallel investigations?

Correct, yeah.

We have not had that.

Okay.

We're working hard to keep that.

Right.

Okay.

Um and how long does an investigation on your end typically take?

Well, it depends on what we're investigating.

Okay.

We've had long-term investigations, or we can have uh a complaint that's uh simple and handled within 30 days.

Uh it depends on the investigation uh that we're conducting.

Understood.

Um next question is uh um I'm thinking of it in Spanish, and then I'm trying to translate in its English, so bear with me.

Um and I understand that the the questions that my the fellow counselors in this committee is asking.

Um I guess what I'm trying to determine um is in T isn't it uh based on the way it's written, I don't know that that potential situation would happen unless I mean I guess my very next question is are we anticipating that para is going to be requesting records at the exact same time that um OPR is going to so that they can prepare an investigation?

Like I'm I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the concern for the parallel or the potential of a parallel investigation happening because if we're delineating in a previous uh no or uh regulation that para can absolutely not do anything until um once your investigation has completed the concern uh they'd be violating ordinance if something along those lines happened so that we are intentionally we're in trend in this, we're intentionally creating the parameters to avoid exactly what you've been working so hard on uh making sure that doesn't happen.

So I'm I'm trying to understand why the access to information as written would indicate that that could happen.

Would you be able to kind of walk me through your understanding or your train of thought?

So a complaint comes in, a civilian files a complaint, we look at the reports, we we look for body one camera video, we start digging through our uh systems.

Granting Para that access, the concern is when they complaint comes in, they can uh go in and conduct that investigation without us ever knowing.

Which will create the opportunity for a parallel investigation.

Got it.

Okay, so then I guess my question will be that lack of coordination.

Understood.

So then my question, my line of questioning is when does Para have access to that information?

Is that noted anywhere in this ordinance?

I mean I've read it through, and I'm not exactly sure if we delineate that or specifically say that.

I thought that I thought that a previous um uh regulation kind of hindered that opportunity, but I think your question or your specific concern is regarding when para is able to obtain the access to this full information.

Okay.

Now I now I see what you're saying.

Okay, thank you.

I have further questions after.

All right.

Uh okay, so Major, uh, thank you so much.

Um, all right.

So before I call the public that has signed up, I'll entertain a motion to enter into the records a letter of testimony made by councilwoman Peterson.

Second.

Second by Councilman Bagas, all in favor, aye.

Opposed, yes, have it.

Fair enough.

Now we'll call uh Harrison Turdo.

It's Tuttle.

Good evening.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, committee.

Thanks, Pera, for being here today.

Um behind you at 7 a.m.

Uh 3 p.m.

and 5 p.m., the Providence Police Department and its officers go on Kennedy Plaza, and they have begun to start escalating uh attacks among our homeless population.

This is a fact.

You cannot dispute this.

We go and we listen to our community and we hear the stories and we hear the harassment.

And I've spent a good amount of time understanding both the Providence Police Department and other municipalities to know that you as a city council beyond a budget cannot hold your own officers accountable.

The Providence police chief can't even hold his own officers accountable because it's not in your municipality control, it's under Leabor.

That in which the Providence Police Department and other municipalities will seek to maintain and control, so that ultimately, if you do have an officer, let's say on the Province Police Department's payroll right now, like Gene Lugo, let's say you want to go ahead and you want to go to a state house, being off-duty and you want to go punch a woman in the face.

Well, you know, that's gonna go up to Leabore because the Providence police chief can't fire him.

So this conversation around PERRA is about a fundamental issue that the community does not trust the police because I want to tell you something.

When individuals go and they file a complaint with the Providence Police Department, they are threatened, they are harassed, and sometimes they're subsequently arrested a couple of hours later.

And you want to know why they're arrested?

Because there's no accountability.

And last time I checked, we pay their salary.

So this conversation around oversight is it can only work.

It can only work unless there's a fundamental belief that the Providence Police Department is absolvent of corruption, is absolvent of harassment.

Now I'm I I go back to the origin, you know, the original founding of the Providence Police Department, which is slave catchers.

But I won't go that far because we are so far removed from that.

Yet I do see a pattern of people being targeted and criminalized based on poverty, and it's happening right behind you.

And so the reason why we're here today is because we would like to see power for the City of Providence work to hold your department accountable.

And if there's any interest in actually looking at the information outside of internal politics within the Providence Police Department, the list of ordinance would be the pathway to begin that process of regaining trust within the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And next we have Nancy Crane.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Tonight, on behalf of the homeless community, I'd like to ask you to vote in favor of this revised ordinance, giving PIRA increased access to information once a civilian complaint is filed.

I know we're supposed to limit our time, so I won't go into the detail of my own experience working with homeless folks when they have tried to file a complaint after they've been harassed, um, intimidated when they go to get a complaint from the police department.

Uh uh the police officer holding it in their hand saying, 'You sure you want to do this?

Are you sure you want to do this?' Okay?

That's intimidation.

So I understand what the major was saying about how they want to, they don't want anyone to interfere with an investigation of their police officers.

However, it's like the fox guarding the hen house.

Okay?

You don't want if if I have nothing to hide, right?

And if I have faith in my officers, and I know this isn't all the officers, right?

I mean, the whole purpose of body cam wasn't just to protect civilians, it was protect police officers, right?

From being falsely accused of doing something, right, that was illegal or misbehavior or whatever.

Violating someone's rights.

I mean, them being accused of something they didn't do.

So the whole process isn't working right now.

Um as it stands, police officers hold all the power.

They have a position, they have the backing of their union, and I believe in unions.

I was a union member for 25 years.

I'm not saying this is because of the union, but I'm saying this is the part of the power that they have that our homeless folks and our youth in the city don't have, okay.

They have their union, they have their uniform, their badge, their patrol car, and they can intimidate.

They roll down their window, pull up on somebody, and start harassing them.

It's horrible.

I had a story today.

A man 45 years old shared this with me.

He wants to file a complaint.

Um last week crossing the street at Kennedy Plaza, and he was in the crosswalk, police car pulled up, and he said, Get the F out of the way.

Get the F out of the street.

This guy has had five strokes in three years.

He walks with a cane.

He was unsteady on his feet.

It was taking him a while to get across the street.

Get the F out of the way.

That's that's an honorable police officer.

Then he proceeds to get out of the so this man admitted.

He said, he mouthed off at me, so he started swearing back at the police officer.

Police officer gets out of the car, slams against the car.

Do you think he had his body cam on right then?

Do you think his body cam was turned on?

We've had situations where people get harassed through the window, or they a police officer will get out because they are homeless, because they have a backpack, because they don't look clean, maybe their clothes are soiled, because they're vulnerable.

They get out of the car and start accusing them of being a drug addict or whatever, just harassing them.

Guess what?

That's not on the body cam.

Then when the person reacts, okay, the person bucks up and fights back, maybe start swinging or whatever.

There are people with mental health issues on the street.

They react.

And then we're going to put our camera on.

Okay.

So if PIRA had the opportunity to look at a civilian complaint filed with their office, if they had the opportunity to see the body cam that was turned on just on a homeless person swearing or swinging, right?

You'd say, what happened before this?

Where's the beginning of the story?

And it from my understanding, the ordinance is not that they would share all this information with the entire PIRA board.

I thought it was to be shared with the director and staff.

So I'm just um, I don't know.

I guess we're kind of desperate.

I'm afraid for our homeless community and our youth in the city because of FIFA coming, right?

We've already been warned.

We're gonna clean these streets up, we're gonna get rid of these people.

And my question is, where do you want them to go?

Tell me.

Where do you want them to go?

Please pass this ordinance as it's written.

Thank you.

Uh Susan DeRita.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I am Susan Dorita, a former PERA board member.

After six years of working to get this ordinance amended, cycling through several chiefs of staff, council members, and policy analysts, we are finally here.

I would like to recognize my fellow para members who worked tirelessly and collaboratively to bring us to this point.

Machiste Rankin, Deborah Ray, Michael Fontaine, Rebecca Bucci, Ivan Montanez Montoya, and Darrell Williams.

I also want to recognize the work and expertise of Ferenc Caroli, John Ivan, and Catherine Barra, Paraff.

This was an amazing group of dedicated community representatives who brought many perspectives while suggesting changes to both the ordinance and policy.

This ordinance is only one piece toward effective civilian oversight.

It more aligns with the 13 principles of effective oversight, CEPA NACOL, the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement.

But these are just words on paper without the cooperation of follow-through necessary to create meaningful change.

In accordance with the ordinance, several policy change recommendations were made only to have Providence Police Department fail to implement them.

These recommendations reflected a citizen's perspective regarding issues such as the treatment of juveniles, the timing of body one camera activation, and then use of what is commonly referred to as the gang database.

Unfortunately, very few of the recommendations made by PERA have been adopted.

Over the past three years, discussion of this ordinance has appeared on the Para Public Meeting agenda 23 times.

Yet only one individual from the public attended a meeting to offer suggestions.

The public has had repeated opportunities to provide input through the process, making only significant opposition tonight raised, it would be long overdue.

Pera plays an important role.

The number of complaints has increased rapidly over the past several years.

The role of a police officer is one to be admired, but when a line is crossed, review by a diverse and independent group is necessary to evaluate situations from differing perspectives while still considering the evidence presented.

Thank you for considering the amendments presented tonight.

However, they do not go far enough to address the budget reductions made over the years that have limited PERA's ability to hire additional personnel necessary to effectively carry out its responsibilities.

PERRA has made significant process progress by increasing transparency through a public portal, expanding community outreach, and providing greater public education, and it continues to be an important asset to the community.

Your support for the passage of these amendments would send a clear message to the community that this council values accountability, transparency, and meaningful civilian oversight within our city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Harris.

Well, okay.

Susan, you mind coming back, Councilwoman Harris has a question for you.

Councilwoman.

Thank you.

And thank you for serving and uh really taking the oversight very seriously.

Thank you.

Serious enough to know that there has to be some changes that has to be made to be able to mend and make power work.

Um these changes that are being made.

There's a question about TNU.

And it's about uh power possibly doing parallel investigation with this amendment.

From your site and your work that you and the other members that are no longer here on the board, but have worked on this over a period of time.

What is your interpretation of you don't have it in front of you?

T.

The executive director of PERA and our power investigation staff shall be given full user access to the information record management software used by the police department, including its internal investigation and body one camera system, so that PARA may effectively review and audit police internal investigation as well as complete its own investigation, provided.

However, that such access shall be used solely for official plural investigation, audit oversight function authorized under the chapter, and limit to information reasonable necessary to carry out such function and for no other purpose, all users will be subject to the same confidential requirements as police users will not disclose personal identification, identical uh information except as allowed by law.

You remember that one?

Yes.

What was the intent behind this uh particularly?

So let me first say that our executive director Caroli and Inspector Umant are very skilled gentlemen.

They know what they're looking for.

There were occasions where you um we were basically given information by the police department.

If we can't go in and look at it and take what we need to get, then you get what you get.

So, how independent is that when you're relying upon someone else who is part of that investigation to give you what they choose to give you?

Yes, they can go after and go in and get that information, but why should they?

If they are going to come uh complete an investigation, they should have soup to nuts.

So that was the some of the theory behind having that full access.

That is also one of the 13 uh principles of NACOL and of effective oversight of having unfettered access.

Thank you.

Do you think that would create parallel investigation?

I I don't, I mean, to me, I'm reading it.

My colleagues reading it.

And I'm just I'm not understanding the police's feedback from this.

Yeah.

Executive Director Caroli had um an outstanding uh relationship with the police department and communicating a lot of the issues of the complaints, and there was never uh a question that there was a parallel investigation going on.

Thank you.

You welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks so much.

And next we have Denny Griffiths.

Good evening.

I'm moving things already.

Uh councilwoman, chairman, council members.

Uh, my name is Danny David Griffiths.

Uh I'm here tonight um for many reasons.

Um I'm a person in long-term sobriety.

I'm also a formerly former member of the unhoused community.

Uh, who you know, through fighting tooth and nail, ended up here tonight to want to have a voice for the voiceless and be a face for the faceless for a long time.

Um I went in and out of prison uh 14 years, in and out of our wonderful correctional institution here in Rhode Island.

Um the one thing that I will say out of all this is that even then I realized there was something wrong with the system, and I was part of it.

I was the problem.

That was the worst part.

And I realized that, you know, someday I would like to be the solution to that problem instead of the problem.

Now, if I commit a crime on these streets here in Providence or anywhere else in the state of Rhode Island, I'm gonna be held liable for that crime that I commit.

I'm gonna get judged, and I'm gonna serve that time more often than not, more time than I should have served, but I'm gonna serve the time, right?

Here we have cases time and time again in the 12 years that I've been in this city, directly interacting with the police on a negative basis, them harassing me.

Uh uh other situations that I can't speak on at this moment, but uh you know, direct access and and being in direct contact with these offices, I can tell you that they are not kind to not myself, not not people that are involved with us.

It's almost like once they realize who you are, you get marked with a target.

Now I don't know.

Have you ever been hunting?

It's not nice to wake up every day and feel like you're being hunted by the same people that are hired to protect you.

This is supposed to be a protect and serve situation.

They can protect with aggression, but their serve is is there's no serve left in the city.

I don't know what's wrong with the police department.

All I know is that this particular ordinance allows a group of more than just the police to police the police, which is what we need.

You cannot have a group of unfettered, un there's no eyes on them, they're just running around doing what they want.

And then when you complain to the higher-ups, it's fruit of the poison tree.

They don't care, they turn their eye.

I filed four complaints at that police department.

Now they can't find them.

I have a digital receipt of these complaints that I filed, and now you're telling me that they're not in the providence police database.

I went there with an eye witness.

What are we doing?

The officer hands me a slip of paper and threatens me to my face.

Are you sure you want to do this?

Your life can become very stressful.

We need para.

There's no thinking about it.

It has to happen.

This oversight has to happen.

Now it's not going to be perfect, nothing is, but I really believe that with having these organization involved in being able to have more access, allows the police not to fidget with the evidence.

Now, the only way I see things, right?

And I'm looking at from a straight anybody's objective point of view.

What would be the one reason that you wouldn't want to admit that you have anything on file?

You have something to hide.

That's the only revelation that I can come to.

I paid taxes, I've been out of trouble for 11 years, and I'm still getting followed around outside.

Just the other day they pulled me over here for standing somewhere, just ran up on, pulled down there, what are you doing?

Just ran up on pulled down there, what are you doing?

Asking me uh intimidating questions.

But I'm not on probation, they can't arrest me.

So they move on.

I won't give them a reason to arrest me because this is my job to make sure that things like this get passed by all of y'all.

Because I'm a member of the community.

I come from that community.

I'm directly affected in that community.

And I've watched for too long these officers get away with things that they shouldn't, whereas if I did the same actions, I would be behind bars.

Something's gotta change.

Please help us do that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, absolutely.

Go right ahead.

Sure.

Danny, I just I just wanted to tell you while we're on record, I've known you for a very long time, and I'm really proud of how far you've come.

And I just want to make sure that you're aware that I'm I've seen the highs and the lows, and I'm really proud of you right now.

Thank you for speaking up.

I appreciate that.

Thank you, counselor.

Uh Denisia Fahi.

Good evening.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Denesha Fehi.

Um, I'm grateful to be here and thank you for your time.

It is with a sense of urgency and conviction that I request the ordinance amendments be accepted and adopted.

As the recently appointed board chair of PERA, it's my requirement to ensure that PERA abides by its mission to ensure fair, accessible appeal to perceived injustice at the hands of PPD.

Alongside my advocacy for these adjustments to be enacted, I'm asking that there be municipal pressure for PPD to agree to the presented disciplinary matrix developed and presented to the chief that he's been negotiating for more time than is reasonable.

It's beyond shameful and arguably negligent for PPD to avert accountability by their lack of compliance with a clear disciplinary rubric.

If we are under a collective agreement, that PPD is committed to meaningful civilian oversight to ensure the preservation of public trust, then PPD should trust us to investigate and recommend with civilian well-being as our guiding principle.

Ensuring that we have the information we need to make informed decisions, including access to necessary data and a clear matrix that guides our response to officers that have violated this agreement is not a civilian luxury.

It's a public necessity.

With public safety being the h one of the highest paid municipal departments, if nothing else, it is the responsibility of the department to be at the very least symbolically invested in the meaningful civilian oversight and practical accountability.

If cooperation and due process is subject to a definition of integrity that at best is applied inconsistently and at worst, applied in contradiction to community safety and values, I urge this committee to look closely and to closely consider the criticisms and the alleged lack of qualification that PPD OPR is presenting as opposition to our request for data and clear accountability.

Within my capacity as board chair, I offer without access to data and the clear rubric for discipline that's outlined clearly in the ordinance updates.

It makes it all the more difficult for us to achieve our collective purpose of a safe, just and fair providence.

I was appointed to do my job.

They were hired to do theirs.

Let's get this passed so we can effectively do this work together.

Thank you.

Council Moroyas, you have a question for?

Thank you so much for uh your service.

And I just had a question.

The uh the colonel in in his uh letter here had said that uh we also remain concerned with the mandatory language contained in section U, which states that the chief uh quote shall impose discipline based upon Pear's um recommendation.

I think I just heard you say, though, that you are waiting on his matrix.

Um and so I guess I'm confused about this I guess this view that Pierre is imposing their own discipline when you had just said that Pierre is weighing on his recommended matrix of discipline.

Can you just speak to that?

Precisely.

So the chief has received the parade-developed disciplinary matrix that would help us have a uniform and clear understanding of how this process of violation is understood, how officers are disciplined when violations are considered by OPR, right?

Because we just went through this whole conversation about these parallel processes, OPR makes their decision.

OPR makes their decision.

We recommend ours.

There's no formal power for us to impose on them what we recommend.

It's a recommendation.

However, the chief has not confirmed or in any way, I believe, this is my perspective, and I'm new to the board, so take that with a grain of salt.

I'm open.

Um has not complied with the community recommendation, which means that right now OPR is still abiding by whatever they believe is best without any clear accountable, transparent matrix.

So it makes it all the more difficult for a civilian oversight board to do our job in cultivating public trust when this document that would help us cultivate public trust is still being left up in the air of the chief.

So I guess the follow-up question is uh if if this is passed out of the council, will this mandate that the uh that the province of police finally produce and distribute a discipline matrix to Bureau?

That's a great question.

I'm unsure that it would mandate it, however, I do think that it provides pressure.

I think that it requires pressure because ultimately it's written in the ordinance.

It's been written in the ordinance, but I personally am committed to ensuring that the mayor ensures that there's a matrix that's passed alongside this, or at least hold him accountable to have a clear conversation and timeline.

The issue is the timeline.

You can say I need time to review and to consult and think practically about operations.

That's fair.

But what is your timeline for implementation?

Because without that, we're wandering.

Yeah.

I I guess well, I'll conclude by just maybe saying to my colleagues here that it does feel reasonable.

Uh I guess it it it's certainly not unreasonable.

I think PIRA is simply getting uh the recommended discipline from the chief, so I I'm not certain how I understand that they're coming up with their own discipline and then proceeding to impose their own discipline.

So um I'll just state that.

Thank you so much for your time.

Absolutely.

Thank you, Councilman.

Thank you.

Uh Jeremy Costa.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Members of Perra, I didn't know there were members of Para here.

I just thought it was uh city council members and some police leadership.

But um I do know that there's some you know good providence residents, and I just wanted to uh explain myself real quick, because I think um Harrison Tuttle made some really um legitimate statements here, and so I don't want to be redundant and take up too much of your time.

Um I'm just here to speak a little bit of truth um uh uh about all of this because I feel like this is for nothing.

But what we need here is a real independent oversight committee, especially after the unacceptable incident on April 24th, um invol involving William Mitchell.

Police responded to a report of a person with a knife.

Ten people were present.

No weapons were found on Mr.

Mitchell.

Possessing a knife is not a crime.

Threatening a person with one is he was stopped while walking away, frisked, detained, handcuffed, and placed into a cruiser while lawfully recording officers, a protected First Amendment right.

He was taken down, pinned to the ground, punched in the ribs and in the back of the head multiple times.

We have optical proof of that evidence.

The police report claims he kicked an officer, spit blood, and resisted.

Yet he faced only misdemeanor charges.

If he truly assaulted an officer, why were no felony charges given?

We demand full transparency.

Release the complete case supplement, body camera footage with timestamps, dispatch logs, and all reports to perhaps, please, as soon as possible.

We shouldn't have to wait until internal investigation is completed.

We do have article proof of this information.

This kind of force on a resisted on a restrained person causes trauma and potential brain damage, and it must never happen again.

This is why we have homeless people today that can't get right.

Scripture gives us a clear understanding to act justly, to love mercifully, and to walk humbly.

These changes are important and positive.

They improve continuity for the executive director and board members.

Expand review of training and the police academy program, create independent early warning systems, and allow reviews of OPR investigations with recommendations to reopen cases, improve access to records, and require timely responses to PERA recommendations.

These clarifications give PERO more tools.

I do agree, and I support them.

However, even with these recommendations, PERA still locked.

Because the state law enforcement bill of rights often supersedes local efforts.

More importantly, the city council should immediately submit while we have time.

We have three weeks left.

And resubmit yearly until passed a resolution to the Rhode Island State General Assembly demanding stronger decertification powers for the post commission.

Every year we should be submitting this bill until passed.

Decertification for these types of acts.

Officers with sustained findings of excessive force or serious misconduct must be decertified and barred from policing anywhere in the state.

This would bring real accountability and peace of mind to many of these people in here today.

We should not rush undertrained people into uniforms just to fill a spot and risk bankrupting, bankruptcy the city with raises in overtime.

Police officers carry guns, badges, and immunity that welders and plumbers do not.

Police officers also play with people's lives, not just pipes or metal.

To attract better candidates who are rooted in our community, the city, the city should actively incentivize the Federal HUD Good Neighbor Program or Neighbor Next Door Program.

This allows law enforcement officers to buy a home in revitalized areas at 50% of the list price if they live in that area for three years.

This would help revitalize neighborhoods and bring committed officers who know our community.

Access eternal investigations immediately, identifying violations early in act, not wait until OPR is finished.

Finally, when was the last time Pera held a public comment session like this in City Hall?

In the past year?

I can't remember.

Regular public input is essential for trust.

We must tie proposed 4.4 budget increases, about $7 million with 4.25% pay raises for police to real performance, better training, transparency, and fewer complaints in community trusts.

Providence officers already earn competitive pay, 64,000 to 77,000.

Medium household income around here is about 68,000.

Taxpayers deserve better.

City Council should reward good officers with public citations, like they do their favorite local businesses and artists, and have the courage to expose bad behavior.

These amendments are a step in the right direction, but real change needs decertification, extended training, housing incentives, and immediate para access to complain.

We have to speak up and speak out.

Real oversight protects the community and good officers.

Let's rebuild trust through justice and transparency with smart solutions.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Marcus Mitchell.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair, Counselors.

Thanks for having me.

Marcus Mitchell, I'm executive director of Direct Action for Rights and Equality, DARE.

I've been doing advocacy work here in Providence, the organization for 40 years, advocating for marginalized communities and individuals, advocating for social justice and economic justice.

I want to make sure that we're that I express Dare's support for this passage of this ordinance tonight and urge City Council to do so for your recommendation to City Council to do so.

In 2002, Providence took a story step to accountability by establishing the Providence External Review Authority, PARA.

So two decades later.

Trust in law enforcement remains fragile.

Enhancing PARA's authority isn't just worthwhile, it's essential.

Despite its noble mission to independently audit, investigate and review police policies, PARA has repeatedly struggled to fulfill its mandate due to limited access to records and insufficient structural support.

Implementing an electronic case management system, conducting the first independent audit, and strengthening efforts in transparency and public trust have gone some way.

Yet systemic barriers persist, notably in withholding police records and resisting recommended policy revisions.

Similarly, past incidents illustrate systemic barriers.

The public safety commissioner argued that PARA's ordinance limited oversight to strictly internal investigations, those excluding broader or criminal investigations.

The recent draft includes several robust reforms that will transform PARA's capacity to oversee meaningful police accountability, granting PARA clear authority to investigate complaints, including initiating its own investigations upon probable cause, mandating that at least one and a half percent of Providence Police Department's budget be allocated to PARA, ensuring baseline funding, formalizing community outreach requirements and transparency in rule making through public hearings, enabling the hiring of civilian investigators and a qualified executive director with structured oversight and review mechanisms.

If enacted, these changes would vastly enhance Paris' capacity to independently pursue investigations, engage the public, and review police actions, thus bolstering both legitimacy and trust.

A fully empowered PARA brings substantive benefits with enhanced access and investigative authority, PARA can meaningfully assess police actions and policies.

This rebuilds trust and dramatically increases public faith in law enforcement.

A public oversight body that operates with open hearings and clear remit fosters civic confidence.

Diverse non-police appointments and civilian investigators ensure a balanced perspective, one rooted in justice.

Critics may argue that increased parapower impedes law enforcement, but robust I'm sorry, but robust civilian oversight doesn't obstruct good policing.

It elevates it.

Timely, transparent investigations can prevent misconduct from escalating, safeguard legal integrity, and ultimately improve officer performance through constructive feedback loops.

Providence now stands at a pivotal moment.

The city council should one enact the proposed amendments, especially those securing funding and investigative authority.

Two, ensure Perra's composition remains diverse and community focused.

And three, mandate clear pathways for public hearings, policy review, and access to police records.

This path forward isn't merely reform, it's an affirmation of Providence's commitment to justice, transparency, and community well-being.

Thank you for your time and this.

Thank you, Mr.

Mitchell.

Thank you.

Shana Curlin.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and members of the committee.

Point out what many people here know, but one of the people who made Para happen and worked tirelessly to bring this resource to us is in fact in this room, and that's Councilwoman Harris.

So thank you for your work.

My name is Shauna Curland.

I am the lawyer formerly known as a Para board member.

And I'm here tonight to share my thoughts about this ordinance and my perspective comes from working with the guts of it in the context of having to sue individual officers and oftentimes the city for acts of police misconduct.

Some of them just shockingly terrible.

But I think this ordinance is there are many good things in it, and it's gonna just make us function better as a city.

And in the long run, I think some of these changes can actually help reduce our exposure in terms of reliability, because part of what happens in litigation is the city can be held on the hook if it's not taking care of the problems.

Now, so far, the city has meant the police department itself, OPR.

And while um uh major Ramalin, I have great respect for him, he's a great person, but you know, this is about hate the game, not the players.

And what he described about the OPR complaint process is really a very um optimistic and not entirely correct description.

Let me give you some examples.

In terms of the ease of people filing complaints, other folks have shared the challenges to even getting a complaint in.

Well, think about it.

2015, the Providence um OPR's annual report actually cited 200 what they call civilian contacts.

Someone who calls up or contacts the police, wants to make a complaint.

Out of those 200 contacts, how many actually turned into complaints?

75.

Out of those 75, how many of them were actually resulted in a finding of guilty for the officer?

Yeah, I'm not gonna even make you try to guess.

Four.

So that's whether it's four out of seventy-five or four out of two hundred, which I think is more accurate.

That's not something that protects the city from officers who are going to get us sued.

And I'm saying this as a taxpayer more than a lawyer and a resident of the city.

Um, so I'd like to give you more updated notes on that or numbers on that from 2015.

Unfortunately, I can't, because after we started citing that number in um in court pleadings, they stopped reporting it.

So that's another thing maybe para could help us get.

They stopped reporting it, and I believe they've stopped tracking it, even the civilian contacts, as they call them.

That's one issue.

The other issue is sort of um what the ability of para to look at a bigger picture.

So for instance, and to be able to say what it is, um the in um over the years you've seen these enormous disparities, for instance, in bi race in terms of arrests and use of force.

So another statistic, uh and I'm sorry, I don't I'm mixing up the years because they're all just d um saddeningly similar.

If um the arrest rate um or the number of arrests in Providence by Providence Police of black people, 39%.

Now, black people over the years have been between according to the census, 13 to 16 percent of the population.

So 39% of arrests, 13% of the population.

You have a three times greater chance of getting arrested for being black in this city, according to the actual, even what's reported, let alone what's not.

And it's similar for use of force.

So that's bad enough.

But when then you ask these folks, well, what do you do about the racial disparity?

Um objection, who says there's a disparity, and literally sworn testimony from police officers, including Major Ramalina testifying on behalf of our city, say that is not a disparity.

A piece of the solution.

I'm not saying it's the only solution, but the amount of respect I've I've gained just in the short time that I was participating on the inside, I think from the director, from the board members, many past, as well as the current, um, the dedication, the ability is there to make stuff happen.

They just need the platform.

So I'll run through a few points really quickly.

Um early warning system, yes, there needs to be a separate early warning system.

OPR uses the same database it uses to track complaints.

It has a few different things that will get you a bing or a flat um uh you know a ding in the um in the in the system.

Um but the problem is you it doesn't trigger until you get four of those within six months.

If you get four dings and then it's month seven, and the the one from month one falls off, you're not on red alert status anymore.

If you get three and then a fourth one doesn't come to month seven, you're not on red alert um status anymore.

So having an independent um community controlled authority that can create its own system of tracking the problem officers is again like an excellent opportunity for the city to reduce our liability in terms of in terms of our exposure for um for legal problems.

The training, um, I'm glad that um folks, I believe the um the sub A has the um idea of curriculum added.

That's critical.

I'll give you just one example.

Um, there is a PowerPoint presentation titled 2020 Field Force Unit.

There's a I believe some verbal training that goes with it, but when you flip through the pages of the PowerPoint and you get to the section called intelligence, okay, there's uh some uh um links for different um information, different um postings about rallies or protests that have happened.

Um there's also then it gets to all of a sudden there are the arrest reports, including mine from 2015 in a 2020 the PowerPoint.

This is what they're doing for training.

It's like saying, Oh, watch out for this one, watch out for that one.

That's not that's not training.

Give them my phone number, let them talk to me.

I'd love to train them.

Don't just show them my arrest report.

Um that's ridiculous.

The training aside, so that's the academy, right?

They use the field force unit 2020 PowerPoint.

Um, so I think having somebody who can review that stuff would be great.

That's public information though.

You can app or that anytime you want, go get copies.

Um, and make them give it to you electronically.

Don't get don't let them charge you for the time.

Um there's also then the what they do is um PowerPoint, it's called Power, I'm sorry, Power DMS is the system for all the policies, and they say their training comes from receiving those policies and reading them.

Once the academy's done, if you ask officers what training have you gotten on the Fourth Amendment on the First Amendment, um they will tell you, oh, I have the PowerPoint, the Power DMS.

Well, the problem is you know when you get those emails, you open it, you scroll down to the bottom.

Okay, you have to leave it open for a certain amount of time, and you click.

There's nothing to say if you even read it, but that's if you actually open it.

If you don't open it, eventually you get an email saying reminding you to open it and read it.

If you don't, again, nothing happens.

So the training really would benefit greatly from a look, somebody looking over that and monitoring.

And ultimately, that is what um that is what para para is for oversight.

So to be able to have access to that information is critical.

When Major Ramelina said that all the materials that they provide during to the complainant during an investigation, and I've had that experience.

Yes, I get those materials when I'm the lawyer seeking it from my client.

If you don't have a lawyer, it's pretty rare you get anything.

As within the last month, I've heard from people who are on the verge of a hearing and have not received any of those materials, and they don't even know they're entitled to them.

Because you can't, it's a terribly hostile environment to navigate through by yourself.

Having somebody who's looking out for the community's interests and being able to access that that information will be tremendously helpful.

And if you don't file a para complaint, you're not even allowed to see your own information.

I know of a woman who an officer broke her wrist, and even with the assistance of an attorney, she wasn't allowed to see the old the body worn camera from when they entered her house illegally and did that.

So I think that was it.

Oh, that should be it.

Okay.

I'm just gonna stop there, but um, you have a great opportunity here to do some good, make things that more effective, and ultimately you're not just protecting all of us on the street, which I know is in our the biggest thing in all of our hearts in our communities.

You're also protecting the city budget from all this exposure that the city has when we don't succeed in keeping an eye on our police department.

So thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Okay, and last is Ferrenskaring.

Executive Director.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you for having me.

Going old school with paper.

So good evening, Chairman Espinall, uh, honorable members of the committee.

So I'm here in strong support of the proposed amendments to the para ordinance.

These changes represent nearly five years of practical experience operating under the current framework, identifying where the ordinance works and where it falls short.

The amendments before you are thoughtful and targeted.

They strengthen Para's ability to audit internal affairs investigations, ensure meaningful oversight through independent analysis and review of patterns and practices, and clarify para's role in monitoring serious incidents involving use of force, bias, and constitutional violations.

Importantly, these changes improve transparency and accountability by reinforcing PERA's access to critical records and systems necessary to perform its function effectively while still maintaining appropriate confidentiality protections.

This is not about expanding authority beyond its intended purpose.

It is about ensuring that the authority already granted by this body can be exercised in a way that is consistent, efficient, and credible, and bring us closer to the fulfilling the promise that this city council made to the people 23 years ago when they created Para.

These amendments represent hard work, experience, and collaboration of many people in service to the city.

I would be remiss if I didn't think personally councilwoman Mary Key Harris for her assistance in this effort.

When I first joined Para, she was the first council person I met with to talk about this very critical issue with her former uh advisor, Sean Bouchard.

I remember it very well that first meeting.

And she was very passionate about how important it is to get this right, as she was one of the people that spearheaded this to begin with.

And so these amendments are not a criticism of ineffective ordinance.

Para was revolutionary, right?

It still is.

It's the only civilian oversight agency in the state of Rhode Island, and it hoped that it can serve as a model and that if we get it right, that it will be followed by other communities.

And this should be something that should spread out far and wide, because police have an enormous amount of power, and power needs to be checked.

You need to have truth to power, right?

This that's the whole point.

And so, you know, I I'm obviously singling her out, but I appreciate all of the council members, you know, Chair Espinall for um their efforts, Council President Miller, um the council staff, you know, June and and Aaron who worked so hard to put all the pieces together to make sure that this is moving forward.

You know, Susan spoke and she mentioned former board members, but I I think it's imperative that having worked with them directly and the amount of work and passion that they put in that I mentioned Susan DeRita, Machise Rankin, Deb Ray, Daryl Williams, Fanita Fivale, Rebecca Bucci, Ivan Montanez-Montoya, Michael Fontaine.

You know, these people put years into this.

You know, you you know, we have a new board, a new new board, which I'm super excited to work with, and they're passionate, and Tunisia did a great job coming up here and speaking about, you know, she brought up the matrix, which I'd like to touch on a little bit as well.

But you know, these these are people who are passionate about gotcha moments, but about making the city safer.

It's it's about working collaboratively.

We are not an adversarial agency to the police department.

Pera is not anti-police.

It is 100% propositive policing.

It's about following the rules, not hypocrisy, right?

That's what oversight's about, making sure people are held to account.

And that's what we want to do.

My staff, John and um Catherine, who work tirelessly, and you know the mayor's staff, the legal department, um, even the police department.

They were all in on this process.

These did not come to you uh just put stuff together and let everyone out.

That's not how this process works.

We worked with all of them as partners, as co-partners to try to vet and deal with all of their concerns in the language, right?

So, you know, the idea that all of a sudden the bottom of the ninth inning there are all these problems that have arisen.

We've been working on these changes for five years plus.

So it's not five minutes, it's not five months.

You know, the we've going back to the prior administration.

So these are these are important changes, and most importantly, I want to point out and thank the community, right?

You see the community support that we had.

We've only had one person speak against these amendments, and that's the police department.

The community is has been very vocal about how important this is and the partnerships that we've been building with them, and they see that we can make some positive change.

And so, you know, just in close my remarks, as I'm sure you have questions which I'm I'm looking forward to answering.

Strong civilian oversight benefits everyone.

It builds public trust, it strengthens legitimacy and provides clear and consistent standards that support both the community and the police department.

We serve as a nexus to the relationships between the Providence community and the police department.

When people don't feel confident that they can trust that they're gonna do the job or they're gonna take their complaints seriously, we can be that bridge, and we can be that objective party that reviews the information and gives an honest assessment of what happened and puts that out there into the ether, right?

It's transparent, the world knows.

And then you have the ability through the power of the pulley pulpit, the power of the pen, and the mayor's administration, they have the power to ask the hard questions once you know what's going on.

You're not in the dark.

So I respectfully urge that the committee move these amendments forward.

And I thank you for your time, and I'm sure you have some questions.

Thank you.

Any question from the committee?

Uh Councilman Vargas.

Thank you very much.

Um, I want to ask you how many cases do you have to uh this time now with that you were working on it?

Yeah, to date, I think we're up to we got a couple yesterday, so I I think we're in the mid-20s already for this year, and we had over 50 last year.

So every year that I've been here, we've gone up more almost more than double in the amount per year as people become more aware of our ability to handle complaints.

Go ahead.

Absolutely.

And uh when you take a case from uh a citizens or a custodians or person, who made the last decision whose fault is, or how long will it take you to finish this case or that investigation?

Yeah, so the time frame varies, but specifically, you know, I I think this is a good question to address some of the issues about parallel investigations that were brought up as well.

You know, when whenever we get a complaint, the first thing we do is to reach out to the complainant to make sure we have their right information and and you know the facts.

And the very next immediate step is we then relay that to the police department to ensure that the OPR is aware of the complaint if they haven't had one lodged already.

And we completely understand the department's concern about them not getting a complaint in a timely manner because they are the only authority in terms of being able to suspend a police officer, to do some sort of immediate corrective action.

So there's no disagreement on that.

That's why we were very willing to have the language added into the ordinance about no parallel investigations.

We defer to OPR as the primary investigative body because we are an advisory board.

And because we don't have statutory authority to impose discipline, it is important and critical, and we understand that from a common sense perspective, that the police department gets the information immediately and takes corrective action.

As a review, so to your time component question, that obviously depends on how long it takes OPR to finish their complaint.

Because we do not do parallel investigations, and as Major Remalina testified, that's never happened.

So the idea that this is some major concern now because we would have access, if you just take that to its logical conclusion, their concern is that we're going to somehow deliberately violate the ordinance and do something we've never done before, which is conduct parallel investigations.

And I'm here to tell you that besides it never happening, it's not a realistic concern.

Because our mission is to ensure accountability.

If we did that, and we recognize, and as I'm testifying to you today, that if a parallel investigation could undermine the result of a legitimate police misconduct investigation, that would go against our mission, right?

So that would give an officer that should be held accountable a potential opening to not be accountable.

So for that specific reason is is why we have agreed, have not ever done parallel investigations and and would not do parallel investigations because our focus and our mission is to ensure proper accountability for misconduct.

So when they complete their investigation, we would review it and make sure that we agree with its outcome and make sure that there are no issues that were maybe stones that were not turned over or looked at, no questions that should have been asked that weren't asked, and bring that back to the department's attention for them to handle and review.

But that's what gives the public that bit of transparency and confidence that these questions are being asked.

Because we have seen, and it's been my experience, you know.

One of you asked the major and important question and said, I think it was you, Councilwoman Harris.

If PERA asks for more information, do you give it to them, right?

And I think that was a really important question because the answer was yes, we do.

And I would say, why do we have to ask for more information?

If they are turning everything over that we're supposed to have upon the initial request, there shouldn't be more information that we then have to ask for.

And that's the direct reason why we need direct access to records.

So that we don't have to guess whether or not we have everything.

And speaking from experience, that's happened many times.

You know, they even if it's unintentional and it's not coming from a malicious place, they filter the information that they give us.

Ten officers on scene, two body camera videos.

Call back.

How come we don't have 10 body cam videos?

Oh, we looked at the rest of them, and there's nothing really important on there.

So we gave you the ones that we thought were important.

How is that oversight?

How is that full transparency?

So, okay, can I get the rest of the videos?

Oh, yeah, we'll send some over.

And then that delays even further when we get it to review the information.

It's just a common sense principle that if you put the word oversight, it equals access to information.

That's a that's a bottom line minimum requirement.

You don't have oversight if you don't have access to the information.

Unfettered access.

It would be like if the police department got a search warrant, went to the house, gave the search warrant to the people they were searching and said, Hey, can you guys go in a house and give me the information that we're looking for on a search warrant?

We'll let you filter it.

We don't want to look, we trust you.

That's what they're asking us to do.

It's not about individuals and people, it's about policy.

If we have oversight, then we should be able to have access to the records so that we know and we can tell the public, we can report out we've looked at everything they have, and we can say that with certainty.

Right now we cannot.

Councilwoman Peterson.

Thank you.

Um I forgot my question.

Please.

Councilwoman Harris, I believe you had a question.

And then we'll go back to Councilwoman Peterson.

We probably have the same question.

Most likely.

But I'll trigger your question.

Thank you for just giving us an overview of what has been the struggle for power to just be able to operate like the people who have advocated for to you know to be here.

I mean, if the people in Providence did not have issues or whatever a form of imbalance, we wouldn't have a power, right?

So obviously, there is that imbalance that happened years ago, years and years ago, in the 80s, 86, if I'm not mistaken, uh their direct action for rights of equality had a police oversight board.

And their job at that point in time was to help people file complaints.

And um, and they knew the need of a board like Para to be in place, so much so that I want to thank both you and Shauna Curlin for giving me credibility for being a part of PARA, but I gotta say the the part like the most important part, it was a providence movement.

It was something done by people who really believed that they need another uh uh place to be able to file complaints.

People at the time believed that police can't police the police, so they needed an obesite.

So we appreciate that um that we are still here, and I tell you what, when I watch stuff happen globally and throughout all over the place, right?

I really believe PARA have made an impact on our communities by being there and being in existence.

My question, I do have a question.

I had to work for my councilwoman.

Um I want to use um in number you in the U section, and this is a finding facts and determination.

Um my question is because you have an investigator, you still will have a hearing panel, right?

If you brought a police officer before your board, right?

Yes, sir.

It would go through the same process, right?

The hearing panel, and then what happens, the hearing panel find their right uh with properments of evidence, they find whatever um finding, and they turn it over to the investigator.

No, the the that would be the final step.

So the investigation happens, and that that's part of the evidence packet that would be provided to the hearing panel, and then the hearing panel um makes the finding of fact and decides what the outcome should be.

Sure, thank you.

I got a little confused.

I'm like, wait a minute, is the hearing panel still in existence?

It is.

So thank you.

Thank you for that.

And um I I don't understand the police concern about um the um matrix.

I really don't understand.

Yeah, because uh having the privilege of being at the table from the very beginning, like now, they have given input to what that matrix is.

Uh power board did not create the matrix.

Power boards sit with the police to say, isn't it ABC or something like that?

Right.

Okay, and different levels.

Somebody could just shovel a uh ticket in your face or whatever.

Right.

Different level than someone actually being attacked and abused.

So um I don't understand why we get a letter saying that that is something that is uh a concern.

Yeah, well, I I can speak to that, and I I think one of the problems is the fact that the police department still has not approved a matrix.

And this is something that I started, you know, every time the chief or administration changes, they have the opportunity to put their input in, and and you know, the chief is the final authority at the police department about what the punishment or discipline should be.

And power is not asking to change that or questioning that.

But it's very telling and very interesting that in the police department policies themselves, there is no matrix.

There's only language when it comes to discipline that talks about a progressive discipline model.

But they do not have any guidelines or matrix themselves to even let their officers know that if they are disciplined for X, Y, or Z, that this is the range of punishment.

I mean, if you're familiar with the court system, I mean there's sentencing guidelines.

There's these are these are not uncommon things, right?

This is so that people understand what the consequences of their actions could be, so they have a good understanding.

Well, the police department doesn't have that.

They have a progressive disciplinary model.

That's what that's the extent of their language.

Doesn't give detailed examples of it.

And so the matrix is an important tool because it ensures that the police department has got direct input into what we collectively, we being para and the chief collectively agree are reasonable recommendations for discipline based on the types of violations that we might see.

And so that we are not making recommendations that fall way outside the realm of reasonable, right?

Someone is discourteous to an individual, an officer's discourteous, and para comes back and recommends termination, right?

That would be unproductive and a waste of time, and that would not be reasonable.

And so to avoid that excessive sway, we want a matrix saying, hey, what do you consider reasonable?

This is what we consider reasonable.

Let's find somewhere in the middle, create a range so that when we are making recommendations to you, you can't later come back and say, oh, that's completely unreasonable, right?

Because you were on board with creating it.

Well, the pol we've submitted matrices to the police department multiple times, the most recent one being in October.

And Denisia didn't know about this when she was up here because the chief just sent me uh and some of the council staff a response at like 10 o'clock at night the other night, denying that matrix as well, which they've had since October, right?

So it's just this week they finally got around to looking at it and said, no, we we don't agree with your matrix.

Um we want something simpler.

And I understand they don't want to be penned into this idea of telling us what's reasonable so they can then later say, well, that's not reasonable.

We didn't agree to it.

But that positioning is unreasonable.

We need to have an alignment on what reasonable discipline is.

That's not a crazy ask, and it's required by ordinance, and they still haven't completed that.

So, you know, I'd say that's just more evidence that even though you know the chief's letter and and um major's testimony about seeing the importance of para and that we have a good relationship and we work together, they see the importance and they they like PERA to the point where they still have control of all of the information and they hold all the cards.

But if we're just being honest and realistic, they need to have some of the cards removed so they don't have full control of everything, and we can actually look at the information and be more of a partner in oversight and accountability than we actually are right now.

Thank you.

Thank you for the council Harris.

Uh Councilwoman Peterson, and please keep in mind that um we do have another meeting after this.

Uh and it is a public hearing uh on entertainment.

So let's get that in mind, and we have one more person I want to testify.

Counselor Peterson.

Councilwoman Harris was right.

We asked we were about to ask the same question.

Um, but I actually just have a question in reference to the request for amendment that I had made earlier, and I just wanted to can make sure that you didn't have any um concern, question, or anything along those lines.

No, I I understand where you're coming from, and I think it's reasonable if you give uh an decent amount of time.

I I heard mention four in a row, which would be 12 years, which I think is completely a reasonable amount of time to have a significant impact, and as long as the language is structured so that it allows people to come back and uh after a break of service, you know, the only concern I think I've expressed in the past is that you know how hard it is to get dedicated volunteers.

And so if you exclude people and to the point where you can't then refill the seats, that could be problematic.

So creating it as a consecutive language so that people could come back uh if people don't want to fill in and they can come in the next term, uh I think alleviates that problem, but I I think it's fine.

Thank you very much.

Uh Councilman Royus.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh thank you for uh shedding on your experience uh leading Pierre.

I I do have a question about auditing trainings and curriculum.

And I'm wondering if Per has ever just reviewed maybe the the uh collective collective bargain bargaining agreement?

Because there, in addition to sort of maybe what is what officers are being trained on and the curriculum they're using.

I'm wondering if you ever you've ever thought about what might be structural um uh sort of structural issues within the a collective bargaining agreement.

Not not saying that PERA has the authority to open up a CBA.

I think that that authority lives with the administration and the union, but um I guess my question is have you ever reviewed the layers CBA?

Are there um are there structural um uh barriers to uh police accountability that might live in a CBA and or are there things that you would just like uh for to to see be included in the CBA?

I I um you know from for me I've thought a lot about like you know, officers are out there seeing a lot of um and maybe experiencing secondary trauma on a lot of like crises out there, and I've always thought about and I don't know the answer because I haven't really looked into it, but I've always wondered if we've mandate sort of like counseling, um providing mental health support uh to officers.

I I've always thought about man should maybe maybe that should live in a C BA or and maybe it does, I'm not even sure.

But just want to get your uh view on um just in general, have you reviewed um the Leo CBA?

Are there anything that that concerns you about or that you see as a barrier?

Yeah, I I have reviewed the CBA, and you know, I just point out that Para has the right to review the CBA under the Community Police Relations Act, which is not the Para ordinance, but it's adjacent, right, which gives Par uh Para certain obligations and and powers like with gang list and stuff like that.

And so I have reviewed the the CBA.

It doesn't give us any authority to make changes, but we can make recommendations to the council, and I'd be happy to meet with you and speak more specifically on on that topic any time that you you'd like, because um that is not a bad place to at least make suggestions about that type of training or um remedial efforts, you know, for like mental health counseling and things like that.

Yeah.

Um but sure the C BA often most CBAs have language in there that talk about disciplinary records, the ability to purge disciplinary records, grievance process, things like that.

So they could serve as an additional barrier to um discipline, but it doesn't really impact Paris so much because since we are advisory, we don't impose any discipline anyway.

That would that would run a foul of Leabor.

So, you know, it's more an advisory capacity.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And we have anything like that.

Uh Reverend uh W.

Van Norden.

Hi, that is I.

Um, privileged to speak with you, and I appreciate the important role you have.

Um I come as uh one of the pastors at Math United Matthewson Street United Methodist Church, and we um help the home homeless population a great deal every single day.

In fact, sometimes helping to prevent suicides discouragement, dealing with overdoses, um just keeping people hopeful.

What one of the things that's happened is I'm aware of tremendous um intimidation and um pursuing people, um uh just um rude behavior, and if the police are to protect and serve, I don't get that sense of kindness, goodness, respect, and accountability.

So I'm speaking on behalf of many, many people who are harassed and who need uh another voice.

And I understand that PERA will become sort of another avenue, a better avenue, a more humane, perhaps.

Uh not that I am saying the police are not, a more respectful, kind, understanding, open-minded um place to take their complaints in the first place, and I urge you to pass this and and um fund it as best you can questions.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh excuse me.

Consortiz.

I just want to say thank you for being here.

We really appreciate Madison Church and all that you do for the city.

They can't use the restrooms or whatever.

So I want to thank you for being here.

And I want to thank Madison Street Church for being common, a partner with the city and finally bringing stuff inside so we can understand more and more what the need is in our city.

Yeah.

And we would like to understand more of what those type of harassments are.

So appreciate you.

Appreciate you for coming here today.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I just want to ask that we take a three-minute recess for the counselors.

Thank you.

So let's get back in session.

So again, thank you all for being here tonight.

I know how important this is to everyone.

And I'm glad everybody had an opportunity to speak on this matter, which is critically important.

And over the last couple of years.

Two hours of testimony.

Some concerns were raised, some amendments were proposed.

So I like to ask my committee, uh, you know, this is important.

And the proposed date that I'm proposing is May 26th, which is not then but just over a week or so because we will be here back here to take another matter into consideration.

And at that time we will hold a vote on here.

That allowed me a little bit of time to take all the comments and everything that was uh uh spoken about tonight uh into consideration and and uh proceed forward with something that is meaningful that is certain and uh and believe me that I do understand the need for something like this, but I we just want to get it right, and I know that it's been a long time, so we don't want to wait much longer, but uh uh from here to the 26th, it's it's another 13 days is not that long, and then at that time I propose the uh the committee that we have a vote on that day.

Uh any comments from the committee?

Chair Chairman, if I if I have to woman Peterson Um I while I understand um the inquiry, I do um I don't think that we should continue to push this vote down the pike.

I think um, and if I'm wrong, committee members, if you do not like my proposed amendment or my potential proposed amendment, I'm happy to delay that one.

Um, but I do think that as a result of everything that we've heard, this has been something that has been, as you mentioned, really uh a very long process, as heard by testimony, but also our own personal experience on these on this particular ordinance.

Um, you know, I think that um the testimony that has been provided has given us a pretty conclusive um support towards it, and that's not to say that anybody should be opposed or against, it's simply that we have all of the facts in our hands at our disposal now.

And I think to be to delay this vote would just it would not be supportive of the things that we're trying to attempt to do.

I understand that we're here um at a later date for something different, but um we've sat through over two hours at this point to get to a place where I think all of us, and I will only speak for myself, where I'm prepared to vote on this.

I understand uh councilman Reyes.

I uh go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

I also uh share that view.

I think this um I think this has been with uh I the almost the same from what I understand, and I've seen email communications that validate this, but this ordinance has lived with the uh the administration of the police department for quite some time, and in fact, we had promoted this uh public hearing uh for about two weeks, and um as uh many of you may know that we are required by law just to give 48 hours in advance.

And so this had I I believe the stakeholders who um might not be a big fan of of this ordinance uh have been uh kept in the loop, have um uh have sat with this for a very long time, and it's unfortunate that uh this testimony, and I I that you know, I got a lot of love for the Colonel.

I was talking to him a few days ago.

I I I got a lot of love for him, but I I do understand that this letter came at the 11th hour respectfully, and and I I just don't think that's how we conduct business.

Um and uh I just think that hearing everyone's perspectives, this is so reasonable.

Uh parrot to me, and I'd be very honest, I have not always had my thing on the post when it comes to PIRA because we have so many um so many priorities to focus on as counselors, but they have shown me today that they are uh collaborators, that what they are asking for is nothing radical.

Um and they absolutely respect our police department, and um I think we just ought to give them the tools um that they have been uh desperately asking for, and I don't see how this ordinance would materially change within a week.

Um so um I also share the the uh the view of counselor Pearson.

Thank you, Chair.

Well, thank you for the time.

Uh Councilwoman Harris.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I want to say that I concur with both my colleagues in moving this forward.

Um I I wasn't I was expecting to hear a lot about the changes, but I did hear something extra in this um adjourning of this meeting.

Chair I want to say that I concur with both my colleagues um in moving this forward um I I wasn't I was expecting to hear a lot about the changes but I did hear something extra in this um adjourning of this meeting I did hear that what PARA has been able to do um which is a lot around accountability which is um being able to make sure that people have an alternative to file complaint has made a big difference here in Providence um and it has uh equipped the police department to make a lot of changes too based on the fact that power have uh been able over the years to produce um uh transparency in what they are trying to do I do believe there is a gap there's things that's needed for PARA to be able to complete their projects to be able to do their work and to be able to come up with finance that is fair in order to do that I believe that the police has to do a little better in trying to um work with PARA I believe they both can work together um and it has been proven over the years and like I said there's a lot of changes that I've been able to witness that had happened is because of the existence of power.

I am prepared with my colleagues to move this forward because tonight I've heard a lot of extra things even from Masterson Church which I have a lot of respect for and if these things are still happening then there's no lessons learned um our police department I say that and I say it out loud because I was around in the time when people were really abused I heard somebody say that their complaints were thrown away and not acknowledged that had been the the the history and the the way it used to operate we've came a long way and I like to see us even get better I believe we're better than other cities as far as our police department I really have to give credit for that and I believe it has a lot to do with the fact that PARA does exist.

Council exists and the community exists I say that PARA is uh over sight for the Providence police um the city is oversight for PARA and the community is oversight for the city so for us right so we are we are under oversight and we should appreciate that when we do nothing wrong or we feel like there is not anything that we're bringing harm towards councilman we don't have to um we don't have to evade doing things that are asked of these amendments are very simple amendments they are amendments that should have happened long time ago so tonight councilman I uh councilman chair I am prepared to vote thank you for listening let me just state that you know I haven't supported Oberon I am not against parrot I'm just uh trying to do uh what I'm calling bond in the way that is expected of me which is one that is fully vet this and analyze all the testimonies that were given and come up with something that is sustainable and it because we we're speaking about not the police department but our police department that is going to have to work with Parrot and PARA is going to have to work with the police department so I see it as my personal responsibility to make sure that there's something that they can actually collaborate and they can work uh collectively I go back to 2002 that's 24 years ago that I worked on this uh on crafting para what councilwoman Harris I uh you know that that's a very long time ago so I've been a supporter and I was a member of the board back in 2003 so yeah just just saying that because I I believe in this but the responsibility that I have with me is also one that I must do uh I'm I'm just saying uh we've been through this throughout the years and over the last couple of years there's been a lot of proposed amendment and some of those have evolved and they have evolved to uh something that is much better there were uh certain amendments that we made that uh at the beginning it was a complete no uh when it came to the police department and today they agree with those so we were able to come up with something that is palatable for both sides uh um I don't see this evolving much more but there was certain uh tweaks that I

And they have evolved to uh something that is much better.

There were uh certain amendments that we made that uh at the beginning it was a complete no uh when it came to the police department, and today they agree with those.

So we were able to come up with something that is palatable for both sides.

Uh I don't see this evolving much more, but there was certain uh tweaks that I could probably see that could be made that can make it better.

That's why I was proposing the uh it's just over 10 days.

So that uh our policy team and the law department and also the the the police department, uh we could at least go back on the table like we have done uh a couple of times, and this is why it disvolved like this uh to make sure uh that the we're in the right uh place in the right direction and that we come up with the right policy.

That was just uh my thought.

Uh Councilwoman Varga, would you like to add anything or or you're outside?

Um Peterson.

Thank you.

Um if I could just ask of the policy team um if there was communication between uh the council policy team as well as para as well as police throughout to be able to create this robust formative ordinance that we see each other that we see here today.

Thank you.

Um my last question is um with regards to do you well, do you see any potential changes within what we've heard today that would impede us from being able to pass this ordinance as is.

I personally have not heard anything that would make me feel as if the you know ordinance isn't you know passable.

Um in my personal opinion, I do feel as if you know, especially some of the testimony that came in, you know, late from the police department, um like respectfully makes me feel as if they didn't completely read some of the provisions in the ordinance.

So that's all I can say.

Thank you.

Um hearing that, Chairman.

I you know, I I understand your point, and I and I certainly um can and can empathize, but I do believe that we would be belaboring something that has been put for before us um and discussed in a variety of time at a variety of times, and I would um I believe that at this point in time we should bring it in front of the rest of the council to be able to make the decision with us.

So with that being said, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Thank you for um your comments.

Well, well, if if obviously uh the committee feels uh that is ready to go before the full council.

Uh um we're not standing the weight of that, so we'll send it to the full council.

Um with that uh you want to say anything.

Uh that's I will agree to send it to the full council.

I will agree to send it to the full council.

Yeah.

Exactly.

So what we'll do, um I'll entertain a motion to send to the council.

Motion to approve.

So moved.

Second.

Motion made by Councilwoman Peterson, second by councilman Roy.

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Uh the motion passes.

And being that there's no further business on the calendar on this item uh on this meeting, because we have do have another meeting, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

No, we uh it is two meetings, like I said before, we're gonna adjourn this meeting, so we're gonna stay here because we have another meeting and we have another public hearing.

So move on the motion.

Uh by Councilman Vodegas, and second by Councilwoman Peters.

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Opposed, yes, have it.

Thank you very much.

Okay, so this meeting is over.

And uh so and welcome to committee and ordinance again.

I'm gonna give a second to uh wonderful clerk to get ready.

Oh, welcome to committee on ordinance again.

This is our second meeting, and um Madam Clerk, please call the role.

Yes, Chairman Espino.

Present.

Vice Chairwoman Peterson, Councilwoman Harris, President, Councilman Margas?

Present.

Council Arroyas?

Vice President, you have a quorum.

Thank you so much.

Madame Clerk, uh first item on the agenda, please.

Item one, an ordinance in amendment of chapter 27 of the code of ordinances of the CD of Providence entitled the CDL Property Zoning Ordinance approved November 24, 2014 as amended to change articles two and twelve relating to entertainment.

Thank you very much.

And I'll entertain a motion to enter into the record, substitute a councilman Peterson, second by councilman Vargas.

On in favor aye.

Opposed, yes, have it.

I'll entertain another motion to uh enter into the record and the updated CPC letter and also test letters of testimony.

Opposed, yes, have it.

Thank you.

Uh and our first call on Mr.

Bob Azar from Department of Planning to uh give us a rundown of the amendments here.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, members of the committee, Robert Azar from the planning department.

Um what you have in front of you is a substitute amendment that was uh worked on over the past several months between um staff in within the administration and the council.

Um and uh what we have arrived at is a um uh a few different principles here.

Um first of all, uh what this does is it retains the definition of incidental entertainment, uh which is defined as background music.

Um this is permitted by right at a bar or restaurant, and it does not require an entertainment license.

Um there uh was some desire to allow for uh a slightly higher level of entertainment at a bar or restaurant that would still be incidental.

Um, but instead of the prohibition against a maximum of three acoustic instruments not amplified, um and and things like uh prohibition on dancing.

Um there was a new uh definition called incidental entertainment expanded.

And this would allow for live music performance performance which may be amplified.

It also would allow for trivia and karaoke.

Um and this is something that would be subject to an entertainment license.

Um but again it's still what we would consider to be incidental.

Um and there are some um restrictions on when this would be allowed.

It would it would have to end at nine o'clock Sunday through Thursday and eleven o'clock on Friday and Saturday.

So um the next thing is that uh live entertainment ancillary use.

This is uh yet a higher level of live entertainment.

Uh this is where you know you could charge people for a show.

Um and right now you have to get a special use permit in the C3 and in the D1 downtown zone.

We feel that it's kind of superfluous to require uh special use permit from the zoning board for uh for these zones which are relatively intensive and this live entertainment ancillary use still requires a license from the licensing board.

So um the ordinance proposes to allow those uh to allow that type of entertainment by right in those C3 and D1 zones.

And then finally what this would do is um rename temporary outdoor entertainment to simply temporary entertainment.

Um we realized that we had a um uh use for temporary outdoor entertainment, but we didn't have the uh uh the same thing for temporary indoor entertainment.

So um in fact you were you were allowed to get a temporary permit for outdoor entertainment but not indoor entertainment.

So uh this ordinance rectifies that and um revises somewhat the uh definition of temporary entertainment.

Uh temporary entertainment needs an entertainment license.

Um if it's on public property, it also needs a special events permit.

So um we think that this ordinance does a good job of kind of uh clarifying the roles for all of the different levels of entertainment.

Um it clarifies who's responsible for uh implementing and enforcing uh regulations and and licenses and so forth.

Um this was brought to the City Plan Commission at a special meeting on May 8th, and they uh recommended that the council approve this amendment.

Um they did make a suggestion that uh you take into account the capacity of the Board of Licenses, uh, that they have adequate mechanisms in place for complaints and enforcement uh and that the Board of Licenses properly staffed to enforce um entertainment licenses.

Um and then finally that it be empowered to consider the track record of applicants when reviewing applications, especially for temporary entertainment licenses.

Thank you, Bob.

Any questions on this from Mr.

Hazar?

Aaron Nun, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Uh this.

Now we're gonna go to uh public comments.

I don't have the list in front of me, but I know Sharon still signed up as first.

So coming up.

No, so evening.

Thank you, Chairman.

May I start by saying that it seems to me that by this time you are all quite experienced with potentially how long certain agenda items are going to take.

And so we have been here in excess of two and a half hours.

And um I am saying this both for you and for members of the public who come here and speak uh to participate in government.

Um and sometimes it is beginning to feel like abuse.

So um please understand that we appreciate uh what you are doing.

I am hoping that in the future scheduling can take into consideration the amount of time that you all need to be here, and that members of the public need to be here.

And with that, may I begin?

Well, you you are cutting into your own time.

Uh I completely understand that, but the people before us were allowed to speak individually for a very long time.

And you and you will as well, but understand that we're I'm ready.

Understand that when people come here to testify, I give them the respect they deserve because it's not easy to get here and go ahead and chairman.

Okay, so I would just like to review for you the things this proposed changes to the entertainment ordinance.

We've been at this for seven months.

We started back on October 22nd, 25, then November 3rd, 25, then December 3rd, 25.

I would like to express that I personally have sent text to the president of the council, Rachel Miller, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten times.

We had a preliminary hearing because there was a resolution that the entire council passed that said that a working group should be literally convened in order to come to some agreement whereby we could agree on what these proposed changes should say, such that there was a balance between what residents and businesses need and what clearly they are trying to propose here with respect to these proposed changes.

So we had on December 3rd, 3rd, a first meeting of the working group.

Some people had been assigned and elected.

Justin Royas was there to act as chair, Anthony Santori was there from the Coliseum and Free Play Bar Arcade.

I was there.

Nothing ever happened after that.

So this working group was supposed to prepare and complete a report that was due on April 1st.

None of this ever happened.

So fast forward, the next thing that happens is on the 5th of May, I got an email from Troyen indicating that there would be a special meeting of the City Plan Commission.

So where all of this other stuff was supposed to happen, it never happened.

So I received that email at 3 33 p.m.

on a Tuesday.

They convened a special meeting two days later at 5 p.m.

It took until 5 30 p.m.

to get a quorum, and then two hours of discussion.

What came out of that meeting that Bob Azar presented to you were several things.

And I would like to comment on what Bob has shared with you.

At the end of this discussion, which included one of the committee members, a gentleman by the name of Noel Sanchez, who literally has experienced the very same things that we have been describing himself in his own house in his own neighborhood.

And so all that did was reinforce that what we have been saying, in fact, is happening to lots of people, including a member of that own committee.

So in the very last paragraph, there is a recommendation.

These are suggestions that came from the members of the City Plan Commission.

They are suggestions.

So that said, with respect to what happened that evening, Megan DeSanto, who is the deputy city solicitor, uh was literally asked certain questions with respect to the Board of Licenses, because what you will see in that last paragraph is it will be the Board of Licenses that will need to literally enforce what is happening in these places.

And so questions were asked about Board of Licenses policies, and in two instances, they received totally incorrect information.

Once from Bob Azar, when he was asked how many times the Board of Licenses meets, and he said, well, at least once a month, they in fact meet three times each week, and I know because I'm testifying there a lot.

And then the deputy, in fact, uh offered, and I will read to you a quote.

She was asked to speak to how board how licenses are in fact handled in the City of Providence.

And uh so what uh she said is that it is not uh the case that everyone who comes for a liquor license, I'm quoting, is going to get a liquor license.

I know for a fact there are quotas.

This is what she, Megan, is a municipality is only allowed to give out a certain number of liquor licenses.

This statement is totally false.

So when the people who are literally providing guidance to a committee who is there to make recommendations is receiving false information, then it would seem to me uh we ought to be able to ask that we go back to square one because in fact they were given incorrect information upon which they are expected uh to make their decision.

I would like to say before I close that our position representing residents and businesses has not changed.

These proposed changes should not be approved.

The mayor's number one priority is quality of life in our neighborhoods.

The mayor presented last evening at the Jewelry District Association.

He took one hour of QA, and the quality of life in our neighborhoods came up in those questions.

And so I ask of you to go back to the way this was supposed to evolve, and when the full city council voted unanimously that there was to be a working group to come up with appropriate balanced proposed changes to the entertainment ordinance.

And on that I rest my case, and I'm happy to take any questions.

Any question for the presenter?

Anyway, none, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, next we have Dylan Peacock.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I have on the unenveiled position of being last, so I'll be as quick as I possibly can.

Um my name is Dylan Peacock.

And I'm asking you to not advance this ordinance yet.

The simple reason, asharon mentioned, is that the city council already recognized that enforcement is an unresolved issue.

In November, the council voted for the working group, which I literally had to beg Rachel Miller for, and then begged the mayor for to bring together residents who have actually dealt with these issues in responsible businesses to find out what where are the gaps in enforcement, what are people's lived experiences telling the city.

There's a lot to be learned.

The city council planning could learn a lot by actually listening to residents and engaging residents who have the lived experience of enforcement failure to develop to develop better night my nightlife enforcement solutions in tandem with this ordinance to actually achieve balance and modernization.

That working group never acted in good faith, and you don't have the report that the ordinance voted, or sorry, the city council voted would be due on April 1st.

That matters because the core problem has not been fixed.

The city can make edits around the edges, and some of these edits are certainly improvements, but the existing enforcement system still feels fails residents in practice already.

Some more police, some better training, some more reminders about what the entertainment ordinance says will not solve the structural issues that already exist when residents try to get enforcement.

I'm happy I can talk at length if you want me to.

I'm happy to have any conversations with any of you about what it's actually like to get enforcement when you literally have rings of evidence and how long it takes in the evidentiary standard required.

The City Plan Commission also understood this, and its recommendation specifically calls for stronger mechanisms for resident complaints and for enforcement.

Those mechanisms cannot be designed behind closed doors without the residents who've actually experienced where the system breaks down.

We're just asking for democratic engagement with our government to solve longstanding issues.

If this ordinance advances without fixing that system, the city will be expanding entertainment privileges while leaving residents with the same broken process that so many have experienced.

These are actually major changes that upend resident protections that have been in place for decades.

Things like the prohibition and amplification.

I don't think any of us would mind if it's three people, five people, ten people performing in a band.

But it's always been that this is done without amplification.

Why did your predecessors put that into the ordinance?

It's because that's where amplification is precisely when the city enters enforcement issues.

That's when noise can start exiting the building and harming residents.

And that's why you need to have a system that balances that by fixing these enforcement problems.

So residents already complain about restaurants operating like de facto nightclubs, and the city already struggles to enforce music that escapes the four walls of the building.

That's the law.

But I've literally stood with police officers more than 200 feet from where an established establishment is near my house.

So it's breaking two laws: the noise ordinance, 200 feet, and the entertainment ordinance.

And I've said, officer, do you hear this music?

Yes.

Can you please put in a report and sent to the board of licenses that you're standing in this location, you hear the music?

Oh, I can't do that.

Why is that?

Well, it's because it's not loud enough.

And I'm like, what do you mean it's not loud enough?

I've literally printed out the law, the entertainment ordinance that the city keeps referencing as the thing that will protect us, and said, this is what the law says.

It says if the music's audible outside the four walls of the premise, it's it's a violation.

Oh, well, we can't really do anything, but you know, ask them to lower their music.

You really need to talk to the board of licenses.

And I'm like, but I talk to the board of licenses and they need your police report.

Oh, sorry, I can't do that.

That's in a good scenario.

I've had officers literally say, Oh, I eat there, I like it, they have an entertainment license.

Argument officers have argued with me that an establishment that does not have an entertainment license has one.

Um, so that's the system that we currently exist in, and that needs to be resolved.

Um, so we're just asking, modernize enforcement.

Some businesses are never going to be pushed the boundaries of what's allowed, and uh modernizing enforcement so that there are clear standards will help good businesses thrive and prevent bad actors from taking advantage of the system.