Anderson Responds to Police Chief’s Statement About Termination

JONESBORO, Ark. – After a statement from Police Chief Rick Elliott concerning dismissal of video analyst Rachel Anderson Tuesday night, Anderson responded to NEA Report.

She began by saying she had hoped to not speak to media about the matter until after the appeal. However, a release was sent out by the City of Jonesboro on Tuesday with a statement from the chief condemning her actions. Rachel felt the statement contained several inaccuracies and wanted to respond to each paragraph.

The original statement from the police chief, viewable here in full without edits, is italicized. Rachel’s responses in between paragraphs are bold.

Statement from Police Chief Rick Elliott concerning dismissal of video analyst Rachel Anderson:

This is a person the mayor and I appointed for a specific role after we determined to create a real-time crime center. The mayor created a civilian role for her, upon her request. And I am deeply disappointed that she made misrepresentations and spoke inappropriately.

I was hired in February of 2019 part-time. In April of 2020, while working 40 hours as a part-time employee with no benefits, Chief called me into his office on a Friday afternoon and basically told me I could have a full-time job if I started the police academy Monday morning. So I did. I went through the full academy, I graduated the academy in August, and then, they wanted me to go out on the street for a while before they put me back into the real-time crime center. I said no, because they told me I didn’t have to go out on the street. Therefore, I would like to quit being a police officer and be a civilian again. So when they’re saying they created a position for me at my request, they wouldn’t hire me any other way than if I was a police officer. I was part-time for over a year. I was getting screwed. I bended to their will and went through the entire police academy. And they tried to put me on the street, so I “quit” and they “created a civilian position” for me. That’s what happened and is why they’re saying that. 

She knew intentionally that she was undermining the process. She knew the design was in its infancy and her input would be sought when appropriate. So she made a conscious decision that could jeopardize a critical funding stream violated our grievance policy, violating our code of ethics policy, employee conduct policy, as well as sections of the City Employee Handbook, all of which have been approved by City Council.

The planning stages are the most important for feedback. I don’t care what color you paint the walls or what TV monitor you get me. I felt like I was being left out of the planning so I attended a public forum to give my input on the design before the money might have been spent in an irresponsible way. 

In regards to breaking policy, I have addressed each alleged violation separately in my appeal, which should be made public soon.

Her comments on how the Center functions are not true. It has a multi-function task, and can be performed remotely, and she has accessed it many times at home.

The reason why it is accessible remotely is for emergencies in the middle of the night. Being there, being around co-workers, having the monitors everywhere, all that stuff is important and it’s not just as easy as you can do it from home on your phone or laptop. 

She said of 1,100 cases, all but 100 were investigations. In truth, accident-related video for on-scene and FOIA requests account for most uses. Other staff members say it’s closer to a 50-50 ratio.

I would lump ‘accident investigations’ into ‘investigations.’ When I said there were 100 events, that would be active pursuits, ‘drop everything and work on this now,’ situations, which don’t happen often. But yes, they do work on accidents, FOIAs. We just had different definitions.

She wrote that the mayor and his administration “haven’t spent 10 minutes in the RTCC in three years since he was elected.”

I never said that. I wrote it in an early draft of my speech but took it out. It was in an early draft that I’m not sure how the police chief acquired. 

In truth, the mayor is very familiar with the center’s operation and daily capabilities. He and Rachel have together made several presentations about it.

She stood before City Council and read a scripted statement that she authored during her work hours. She sent the script to co-worker Wade Shapp for his review and approval shortly before her presentation. Shapp was ill and said he did not check his email until after the meeting. Without Shapp’s consent, she spoke on his behalf.

That’s a lie and I can prove it*. I sent it to Wade. I texted him to check his email and read it. I asked him if he approved and he said “Yeah, it’s 100-percent true.”

Her statements and actions are considered to be arrogant and insubordinate, and she certainly spoke ill of a project that is being worked on. Therefore, I felt betrayed by her actions. I no longer have any faith or confidence in her as an employee that she can or will follow my direction of operations in the Jonesboro Police Department.

‘You have to agree with me and if you don’t, keep quiet. And if you don’t keep quiet, you’re being insubordinate.’ That mindset is not the type of boss I want to have. That’s not the type of government that I want to live under. That’s not constitutional. It’s not moral. It’s not right. Your employees are not always going to agree with you – and that’s okay. But it doesn’t mean you can silence them – or fire them.

---

Rachel Anderson has appealed her termination. The review goes to the Chief Operating Officer, Tony Thomas, and the Chief Administrative Officer, Brian Richardson. Both report directly to Mayor Harold Copenhaver.

NEA Report will continue to lead coverage of this story.