JONESBORO, Ark. – The following is the full appeal, written by Rachel Anderson, and submitted to the City of Jonesboro on November 20. It was obtained in a records request from the city by NEA Report.
The appeal was denied on November 29, as first reported here.
by Rachel Anderson
I was terminated from my position with the City of Jonesboro on November 14, 2023 as a consequence of participating in a public hearing on November 7, 2023. The reasoning provided for my termination was attributed to policy violations outlined below. Additionally, my actions were deemed “disrespectful” and “unprofessional.” It was also communicated to the media that by providing my job title, I spoke on behalf of my employer, and it was implied that, being a non-resident of Jonesboro, I could not have been speaking in a personal capacity as a citizen.
During my conversation with Chief Elliott in which I was terminated, I asked which policies I violated. He wasn’t able to give specific policies but said that it all fell under the Handbook, the JPD Policy, and the Civilian Code of Ethics.
After receiving a copy of my personnel file, there were certain policies circled in each of these documents that I assume are the ones I am presumed to have violated.
The first document listed is the Civilian Code of Ethics wherein two points are circled.
Employees of the City of Jonesboro Police Department shall conduct themselves in their public and private activities in a manner which deserves the respect and confidence of fellow employees and the public.
Employees of the City of Jonesboro Police Department shall be loyal to the city and the department and not speak ill of its policies in a public forum to cause harm.
Councilman LJ Bryant actually commended my professional conduct, emphasizing my factual presentation and lack of personal attacks. I was under the impression that a public forum was intended for public input, including input from employees who might be subject matter experts. There are no written regulations in the City Handbook (or anywhere else) for when/where it is acceptable or unacceptable for a city employee to go before the council whether it be a concern regarding a city project or a personal issue. I feel that I did so in a very respectful way with my thoughts carefully prepared beforehand and delivered in a concise and considerate way.
As for the second point above, I never spoke ill of the policies of the Department.
The second document listed is JPD Policy wherein two points are circled:
Employees do not publicly criticize or ridicule the Department, its policies, or other employees by talking, writing or expressing in a manner, which is defamatory, obscene and unlawful or tends to impair the operation of the Department by interfering with its efficiency, by interfering with the ability of supervisors to maintain discipline, or by a reckless disregard for the truth.
Unbecoming conduct – Employees must avoid conduct in the offices or buildings of the Department or in any public place or public forum, which might discredit themselves, the Department or the city or in any way hamper the morale, activities and goals of the Department.
Public criticism is how a company or a government grows. This policy stands in the way of transparency and seems to directly contradict the Arkansas Whistleblower Act.
The Arkansas Whistleblower Act “prohibits a public employer from taking adverse action against a public employee who communicates in good faith to an appropriate authority the existence of waste of public funds, property, or manpower or a violation of law; participates, or gives information, in an investigation, hearing, court proceeding, legislative inquiry, or administrative review; or objects to carrying out a directive the public employee reasonably believes violates the law.”
One could argue that I hampered the activities or goals of the department, but I did so in good faith and in an effort to spend public funds the right way. In an earnest endeavor to uphold procedural due process and contribute to the optimal allocation of these limited resources, I participated in the public forum, offering comments with the aim of ensuring responsible expenditure.
The last document is the City Handbook which has two points circled:
Unnecessary or unauthorized use of City property.
Insubordination or deliberate disobedience of instructions from the City’s management, including disrespectful conduct. This includes, but is not limited to, a refusal to obey the legitimate request of any member of management, the failure to follow instructions, or the failure to otherwise perform assigned work.
The first bullet point doesn’t seem to be applicable at all.
I maintain that I did not exhibit insubordination or disrespect in any manner. The emails provided below demonstrate my concerted efforts to adhere to the established chain of command and my attempts to secure meetings with my superiors. Furthermore, it is worth noting again, that my professionalism during the public hearing was expressly commended by multiple councilmembers who were in attendance.
It was expressed to the media this week that I failed to follow the chain of command when communicating my concerns.
On November 30, 2022, I sent an email to Mayor Copenhaver and copied Assistant Chief Waterworth:
“Mayor, we’ve talked before about putting together some RTCC site visits. If you can provide us with 1 or 2 days when your schedule is free, we will get a couple per day lined up so we can hopefully visit before the end of the year.”
I received no response.
On February 1, 2023, Assistant Chief Waterworth sent myself and Brian Richardson an email:
“When you start to think about the RTCC (which by the way, is a function of police investigations, NOT dispatch) – please, please, please, consider an all in one facility so we could bring all of the PD together under one roof. And, we would more than welcome dispatch to join us!
North Little Rock PD’s new facility just won an award (article above) – I know a whole new building is a stretch, but if you have to do a bond issue for it anyway, why not knock the whole thing out?
Just something to think about ;)”
I replied to Assistant Chief Waterworth and Brian Richardson both on February 2, 2023:
“I totally agree.
Us being close to CID and the Detectives is INCREDIBLY important. Much more important than being in a room next to or with dispatch. I’ve tried to tell the Mayor and Chief this and they don’t seem to hear it.
We are a function of investigations. The tactical dispatch portion of doing things in “real time” is less than 10% of what we do. Even then, we do not talk to or deal with dispatch. We talk directly to officers. Investigations is 90% of what we do and being separated from CID would definitely hinder that.
I’m not sure where the “RTCC and Dispatch need to go in the same building” idea came from but no one does it that way. If we need to take more site visits, I am 100% onboard.”
Brian Richardson never responded to mine nor Assistant Chief Waterworth’s comments.
On October 4, 2023, I texted Brian Richardson and we had the following conversation:
R: “Are we getting a new RTCC Building?
B: “Mayor plans to propose that to council as part of a revenue bond yes”
R: “Is there a set location and/or architect hired”
B: “Nothing is set in stone”
R: “Any way I can be included in these discussions? Does my opinion matter since it’s kinda my show?”
B: “Your input has and will continue to be important and valued. This is and has been a priority project for Cope since he took office and he will be making the final decisions based on input from multiple areas and due diligence by the city. The formal process for that will begin if approved by council. That will take a couple months minimum. If it appears that approval won’t be an issue then we probably need to start some early discussions regarding narrowing down locations and basic needs etc.”
The conversation continued on October 24:
R: “Can I see the floor plans that I know exist?”
B: “I can get what Brackett drew up, I haven’t seen them – just heard. It is going to need to be reduced in size by a good bit to be affordable from what I gathered talking to Craig.”
R: “Had a meeting with Jason today and he said he’s seen them. Just feel like I’m being left out of this whole entire thing.”
B: “I will look for them. I’m hesitant to get too attached to whatever is laid out because it’s simply not going to be a 14k square foot building unless it can really be value engineered.”
R: “Thank you”
Brian never sent me the plans.
Moving on to the claim that I shouldn’t have been able to speak at council because I live in the county.
During my research, I counted over 22 instances of non-residents (including employees) approaching council and being allowed to speak. This number includes people from out of state such as Mr. Chad Fischer from Olive Branch, MS and Mr. Jeff Harris from Memphis, TN.
I sent a message to Councilman Brian Emison on September 21, 2023:
“Even though I’m an employee, I’m not allowed to address the Council during public comments because I live in the county, right?”
To my question, Mr. Emison replied:
“I don’t believe that is the case. We had someone from TN speak two weeks ago that had a business interest in town. I would say that if someone has an issue that pertains to the City through any aspect of their life that they are welcomed to speak so that would 100% check the box for employees!”
Based on Councilman Emison’s response to my question back in September, and the fact that several other non-residents have been allowed to speak, I felt I was completely within my rights as a citizen and employee to approach the council regarding a concern I had.
Regarding myself “speaking on behalf of the department,” at least eight JPD employees have approached the microphone at council and formally introduced themselves by stating their name, address, and highlighting their title as a multi-year veteran of the Jonesboro Police Department
Additionally, there have been at least four municipal employees who have formally addressed the city council during its meetings and have not incurred any repercussions.
Notably, one of these employees was found to reside outside city limits.
One employee expressed pointed criticism to the city council regarding their lack of urgency on a matter of significance to the employee. Furthermore, the employee asserted, “it’s not just me, it’s all the officers,” indicating that their comments were reflective of the collective perspective of the department.
Based on these few examples of employees who have spoken at council meetings and hearings, I feel I was well within acceptable behavior to approach the mic and state my name, address, and job title just like several before me who faced zero consequences. These employees were never said to have been speaking on behalf of their department, yet they stated their job title just like me. They even went a step further and stated things like, “it’s not just me, it’s everyone.” A sentiment I never used.
It was also expressed to the media this week that my comments were disrespectful and unprofessional.
On September 23 of this year, a dispatcher unknowingly had an open mic on the E911 main radio channel and could be heard across the entire state by anyone with an AWIN radio saying, “I don’t give a f*ck if you’re a sergeant, I don’t give a f*ck what you are, you’re not gonna come across this radio yelling at me. 29 was like 10-6 at my 42 bitch I don’t give a f*ck…” A supervisor came over the radio and said “Dispatch you have an open mic.” She quickly stopped talking.
This type of behavior is what would be widely considered “disrespectful” or “unprofessional”, yet this employee was not terminated. To my knowledge she was not even reprimanded. In fact, a few weeks later, she was promoted to a training position in the center.
Public forums have a long-standing tradition of being used by the government to freely exercise the right to speech and public debate and assembly. Unfortunately, in this instance, these freedoms were censored by red tape, ambiguous policy, and hurt feelings.
My termination has conveyed a message to all city employees, suggesting that their voices are undervalued, and their well-informed opinions will be disregarded. Unfortunately, this sentiment isn’t new. To quote a local news story from 2016,
“Some officers were afraid to voice their opinions because they were afraid of being punished. […] Those who have spoken out in the past have been punished.”
And to quote the Constitution (just for fun):
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I loved my job. And I was very good at it. I never had a complaint filed against me, was never suspended, warned, or put on a performance improvement plan. I have won multiple awards for my work both in social media and in investigations. There is no one better suited for this role than me. However, I don’t want to live or work in a world where my voice is silenced or where my peers feel like they can’t stand up for themselves. I will stand up for myself and I will stand up for them. I do not want to work for a government or a mayor who doesn’t agree. Every voice is important and to quote Mayor Copenhaver himself from December 20, 2022:
“Employees are the heart and soul of the Jonesboro public servant sector. I believe they are the hands and feet of our community.”
If Mayor Copenhaver agrees that every voice is important, even mine, then I’d like to ask him to reconsider my termination. In doing so, though, I do not repeal any of the statements I made at the public forum meeting on November 7 and firmly stand by my convictions regarding this topic.
My participation in the public forum was motivated solely by a sense of responsibility and a desire to contribute constructively. Considering my professional role and expertise, I was convinced that I held crucial information that city leaders needed to be aware of before funneling substantial financial resources into a project. I feel that my commitment to transparency and public engagement should be considered an asset rather than a liability.
I appreciate your time and consideration and urge you to do the right thing. If not for me, do it to send a message to the 600 other employees that work for the City of Jonesboro. Tell them that their voices are important and they will be heard.
The city’s response:
Source: City of Jonesboro, via records request
Anderson’s Lawyer Responds After Termination Upheld by City Administration in Appeal
SHARE THIS STORY WITH OTHERS:
Discover more from NEA Report
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just resign Cope. You’re a loser. You’ve been a failure at everything you’ve done. Go back to flipping burgers for Davy while you still have a chance. Flipping burgers at MickyD’s while waiting on your wife’s inheritance won’t pay as well.
The adults need to take care of the city’s problems while there’s still time. We’re becoming Pine Bluff at an incredible rate.
I would literally kill myself if I was this guy. Just a dumpster fire of a situation.