A dispute over whether Providence has a formal written police discipline rubric hinges in part on what an existing document does: PERA’s October 2025 matrix guides recommendations in sustained misconduct cases, but does not decide officers’ final discipline. The distinction is central to the Rhode Island Homeless Advocacy Project’s request that Mayor Brett Smiley establish a department-wide framework.
The matrix is more than a general statement of principle: it lists misconduct categories, presumptive penalty ranges and factors that can mitigate or aggravate a recommendation. But it is a recommendation tool, and the police department retains the final discipline decision under applicable law, contracts and policy, according to PERA’s October 16, 2025 document. The available description does not establish how frequently recommendations have led to particular outcomes.
At a recent Speakout in Kennedy Plaza, RIHAP urged Smiley to create a written discipline framework, saying the department had never had one in its 162-year history. The group provided a proposed matrix modeled on New York City’s system, which PERA has favored. Steve Ahlquist reported that the city and advocates had exchanged drafts. Smiley’s chief of staff, Emily Crowell, said a proposal would have to comply with state law, city ordinances and police collective bargaining agreements. Crowell also said PERA canceled a meeting planned for the first week of October and that a new date had not been set.
The dispute also reflects the different steps in civilian review and police discipline. PERA’s written Intake and Review Procedures say its executive director reviews complaints and recommends one of four available remedies to the board. The police department’s discipline decision is separate. PERA’s February 2025 annual review says it received 18 formal community complaints about police conduct in 2024; that figure describes complaint volume, not how often PERA recommended discipline in sustained cases or what discipline followed.
RIHAP has tied its call for a framework to Jasmine’s August 20 arrest in Kennedy Plaza. In an open letter described by Ahlquist, the group alleged that Officer Matthew Sandorse swept Jasmine’s foot, causing her to fall and remain unconscious for at least eight minutes, and said she was held in the men’s prison at the Adult Correctional Institutions. Those are the group’s allegations; the account does not establish a finding of misconduct in the arrest.
The debate over PERA’s ability to carry out its oversight role has also drawn scrutiny. The Boston Globe reported that PERA accused the police department of repeatedly obstructing misconduct investigations and that the Smiley administration cut the board’s budget by about 28 percent, to $519,000. In May 2026, the City Council voted to expand PERA’s oversight powers, according to its announcement. These developments concern PERA’s oversight authority; they do not determine the facts of Jasmine’s arrest or who should face discipline.
The practical question raised by the dispute is therefore not simply whether Providence has a matrix. It is whether the existing recommendation guide, alongside the department’s final decision-making authority, amounts to the formal written discipline rubric advocates seek. The October document clarifies PERA’s role and the factors guiding its recommendations, but by itself does not answer how a proposed department framework would be reconciled with city rules, state law and labor agreements.
