The Providence City Council on Oct. 16 voted to pass, on first reading and as amended, changes to the city’s Community Relations Act intended to clarify who may sue and what remedies are available under the law.

Council President Sabina Miller outlined the technical edits before the vote, saying the council had added language to limit monetary remedies. “The only change that was made was to make explicitly clear, added the words, but not compensatory or other monetary damages to the sentence, may seek appropriate relief in civil action for injunctive and declaratory relief,” Miller said. The council also removed a provision that would have allowed organizations to bring suit against individual law enforcement officers independently.

The amendments were offered after a series of public hearings and an ordinance committee meeting that ran late into the evening, proponents said. President Pro Tempore Rolando Pichardo said the changes were shaped by community testimony and by colleagues’ concerns about expanding liability. “The substitutions are really addressing, at the hearing, several councilors shared concerns about, expanding the liability. And so we just wanted to make crystal clear that that is not the case,” Pichardo said.

Councilman Miguel Sanchez, one of the sponsors who spoke in favor, described the vote as a response to recent local incidents and national enforcement practices that have worried residents. “We are in a moment where we can react to the urgency of the moment in a way that provides full clarity for community members, for officers, for our, law enforcement, and community members alike,” Sanchez said. Council members across the chamber said they supported the measure as a way to balance accountability and limit unanticipated monetary exposure.

Not all remarks were uniformly supportive. Councilwoman Althea Graves urged caution about language that could cast law enforcement as uniformly culpable. “I just wanna make sure that we are not villainizing the wrong people,” Graves said, adding that when officers “haven't done anything wrong, we don't...paint them all with the same paintbrush.” Several councilors said the amendments were negotiated to address those concerns while preserving avenues for accountability.

The ordinance passed its first reading in a roll-call vote of 13 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The clerk recorded the roll call as follows: Council President Miller — aye; Deputy Majority Whip Vanderbois — aye; Majority Leader Espinal — aye; Senior Deputy Majority Leader Gonzales — aye; Councilwoman Graves — aye; Deputy Majority Leader Harris — aye; Councilwoman Peterson — aye; Council President Pro Tempore Pichardo — aye; Councilor Royas — aye; Councilwoman Ryan — aye; Majority Whip Sanchez — aye; Councilwoman Anna Vargas — aye; Councilman Oscar Vargas — aye. Councilman Taylor was absent. The clerk announced, “You have 13 ayes, 1 absent. The motion carries.”

What the amendment does and what it leaves in place: the council’s change clarifies that organizations may seek injunctive and declaratory relief but not compensatory or other monetary damages; the council also struck the section that would have allowed organizations to sue law enforcement officers independently while preserving individuals’ existing rights to sue. Sponsors said the edits were technical and intended to narrow potential unintended liability while expanding enforcement clarity and protections for the community.

Next steps: The ordinance cleared first passage on Oct. 16 and will return for further readings as required by the council’s legislative calendar. Supporters said they expect further committee and council review before final adoption.