Committee on Ordinances Meeting on PERA and Entertainment Amendments – May 13, 2026

This meeting of the Providence City Council Committee on Ordinances, held on May 13, 2026, beginning at 5:41 PM, covered two major agenda items: proposed amendments to the Providence External Review Authority (PERA) ordinance and proposed changes to the city's entertainment zoning ordinance. The meeting featured extensive public testimony, deliberation among council members, and votes on both items.

Public Comments & Testimony (PERA Amendments)

• Harrison Tuttle expressed strong support for the PERA amendments, arguing that the Providence Police Department (PPD) cannot hold its own officers accountable due to the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEOBR). He cited harassment of homeless individuals and stated that community trust in police is broken.
• Nancy Crane spoke in favor of the amendments on behalf of the homeless community, describing intimidation by police when individuals attempt to file complaints. She argued that PPD's internal investigation is "the fox guarding the hen house" and supported increased civilian oversight.
• Susan DeRita, a former PERA board member, supported the amendments and noted that PERA has made progress in transparency but that the amendments are needed to align with national standards. She pointed out that only one member of the public had attended PERA meetings to offer input during the three-year amendment process.
• Denny Griffiths, a formerly unhoused person in long-term sobriety, testified in favor, saying that he filed four complaints with PPD that were "lost" and that he was threatened by an officer. He argued that independent oversight is necessary because "you cannot have a group of unfettered... eyes on them."
• Denisha Fahi, recently appointed PERA board chair, urged adoption of the amendments and added that PPD has been negotiating for an unreasonable amount of time to agree to a disciplinary matrix. She stated that lack of compliance with a clear rubric is "beyond shameful and arguably negligent."
• Jeremy Costa voiced support for the amendments, referencing a recent incident of alleged excessive force and calling for stronger decertification powers for police officers at the state level. He requested that PERA hold more public comment sessions.
• Marcus Mitchell, executive director of Direct Action for Rights and Equality (DARE), expressed DARE's full support for the ordinance, calling enhanced PERA authority "essential." He argued that civilian oversight doesn't obstruct good policing but elevates it.
• Shana Curlin, a former PERA board member and civil rights attorney, testified in strong support, citing statistics: in 2015, only 4 out of 200 civilian contacts with OPR resulted in an officer being found guilty, and the department stopped reporting those numbers afterward. She argued that unfettered access to records is critical for genuine oversight.
• Ferenc Karoly, PERA Executive Director, expressed strong support, stating that the amendments represent five years of practical experience. He emphasized that PERA is not anti-police and that the amendments are needed to fulfill the promise made to residents 23 years ago.
• Reverend W. Van Norden, from Mathewson Street United Methodist Church, spoke in favor, citing intimidation and rude behavior toward homeless individuals and urging passage of the ordinance.

Discussion Items (PERA Amendments)

• Aaron Easter Gardner, policy director, presented the major changes in the substitute A version of the ordinance. Key changes include:
  • Subsection A (Establishment): Adds continuity for the executive director's term if the council does not act.
  • Subsection B (Scope of Authority): Expands PERA's review to all PPD trainings, including police academies; clarifies authority to conduct regular reviews of police conduct; establishes an independent early warning system; allows periodic reviews of OPR investigations with authority to recommend reopening or amending findings.
  • Subsection C (Composition): Adds clarity and continuity for board members, requires resumes for applicants, and bars current elected officials from serving on the board.
  • Subsection H (Executive Director): Grants investigative staff authority to monitor internal OPR investigations, even with external agency involvement; clarifies succession for the executive director.
  • Subsection K: Clarifies PERA's authority to review police academy policies.
  • Subsection Q (Investigation): States that PERA will not investigate while OPR has an open internal investigation.
  • Subsection T (Cooperation): Grants full user access to PPD's records management software (including internal investigation and body-worn camera systems) for PERA's executive director and staff, but not board members.
  • Subsection U (Findings of Fact): Requires a timely response from PPD to PERA recommendations, closing an open timeline.
• Major Henry Remolina, commanding officer of PPD's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), expressed the department's concerns with Sections T and U. He argued that full access to police records systems could lead to parallel investigations that compromise criminal investigations and officer due process. He stated that OPR investigators are trained professionals and that premature civilian involvement could jeopardize the integrity of investigations. He also objected to language that the chief "shall impose discipline" based on PERA recommendations, saying it conflicts with LEOBR and collective bargaining agreements.
• Councilwoman Peterson suggested an amendment to add consecutive term limits for PERA board members (proposing four consecutive terms, or 12 years), which drew support from Councilwoman Harris.
• Council members questioned Major Remolina and Ferenc Karoly about the potential for parallel investigations. Multiple council members noted that Section Q explicitly prohibits PERA from conducting parallel investigations, and that PERA has never done so. Councilwoman Peterson asked, and Major Remolina confirmed, that no parallel investigation had ever occurred.
• Council members also discussed the disciplinary matrix, with Denisha Fahi and Ferenc Karoly stating that the chief recently denied a matrix that had been submitted months earlier, despite PERA's request for a collaborative tool to align recommendations.
• Councilman Royas asked about structural barriers in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and Ferenc Karoly acknowledged that the CBA could contain barriers but that PERA's role is advisory.
• After more than two hours of testimony, council members debated whether to vote on the ordinance that evening or postpone. Councilwoman Peterson, Councilman Royas, and Councilwoman Harris all expressed readiness to move the ordinance to the full council for a vote, arguing that the process had been lengthy and that the community had spoken strongly in favor. Chairman Espinal initially proposed delaying the vote until May 26th to allow further review, but following the committee's consensus, he agreed to send the ordinance to the full council.

Key Outcomes (PERA Amendments)

• The committee voted unanimously to send the substitute A ordinance (with the proposed term-limit amendment to be added) to the full city council for final consideration. The vote was 5-0.
• The committee also voted unanimously to enter into the record a letter of testimony from the police department.

Discussion Items (Entertainment Zoning Amendments)

• Robert Azar, from the Department of Planning, presented the substitute amendment to the entertainment zoning ordinance. Key changes include:
  • Incidental Entertainment Expanded: Allows live amplified music, trivia, and karaoke at bars/restaurants, subject to an entertainment license, with time limits: 9 PM Sunday–Thursday and 11 PM Friday–Saturday.
  • Live Entertainment Ancillary Use: Allows such uses by right in C3 and D1 zones (previously required a special use permit). The use still requires a license from the Board of Licenses.
  • Temporary Entertainment: Renamed from "temporary outdoor entertainment" to allow both indoor and outdoor temporary entertainment permits.
  • The City Plan Commission had recommended approval on May 8, 2026, with suggestions that the Board of Licenses have adequate enforcement mechanisms, staffing, and ability to consider applicant track records.
• Sharon Steele, a resident, spoke in opposition to moving the ordinance forward. She argued that a working group established by a previous council resolution never produced its report, and that the City Plan Commission was given incorrect information by the deputy city solicitor regarding liquor license quotas. She stated that enforcement of the existing ordinance is already broken, and that expanding entertainment privileges without fixing enforcement is harmful to residents.
• Dylan Peacock, a resident, also urged the committee not to advance the ordinance. He described personal experiences with police officers who refused to enforce the noise ordinance and entertainment regulations. He argued that the working group had not acted in good faith and that the core enforcement system remains broken. He requested that the city fix enforcement mechanisms before expanding entertainment uses.

Key Outcomes (Entertainment Zoning Amendments)

• No vote was taken on the entertainment zoning amendment during this meeting. The public hearing portion concluded, with the item remaining in committee for further consideration.

Key Outcomes (General)

• The PERA ordinance amendment (Substitute A) was voted out of committee and sent to the full city council for a final vote.
• The entertainment zoning amendment public hearing was held, but no committee vote was taken; the item remains pending.